A recent statement from a high-ranking Armenian lawmaker has highlighted a potential shift in the way Azerbaijan and Armenia could pursue a peace agreement. Andranik Kocharyan, who chairs the Armenian parliament’s standing commission on defense and security issues, described President Ilham Aliyev’s idea of concluding a peace treaty without a mediator as attractive for both sides. The report attributed this remark to RIA News, underscoring the possibility of direct dialogue between the two nations.
Kocharyan described the approach as appealing because it centers on the ability of the parties to communicate directly with one another. He noted that removing the immediate guarantor layer might simplify negotiations, though he acknowledged that there are broader implications to consider. The Armenian lawmaker suggested that international platforms exist to bolster guarantees, initially by strengthening their language in the text and then translating those promises into concrete actions. This view points to a two-step process where assurances are first codified and then implemented through measures aligned with the treaty text.
According to Kocharyan, for guarantees to be meaningful, they must be backed by certain powers. He cited past mediator efforts aimed at preventing escalation in the Karabakh region during the autumn of 2020 as an example of how external actors can influence the trajectory of the conflict. His remarks imply that any future framework would likely involve a mix of regional dynamics and international participation to prevent renewed clashes.
In a separate statement on January 10, President Aliyev acknowledged that there might be no need to withdraw mediators to reach a peace agreement with Armenia. He indicated that such an accord should be between two sovereign states, a position reported by TASS. This stance aligns with a broader push for bilateral negotiations while still engaging regional and international actors in a supportive, supervisory role if necessary.
The discussion also touched on a longstanding sensitivity regarding border definitions. Azerbaijan has rejected proposals that would draw borders based on outdated maps from the 1970s, reflecting a insistence on current, mutually accepted terms rather than rehashing historical cartography. The overall conversation signals a potential pivot toward a more direct, government-to-government negotiation process, coupled with selective external involvement, to ensure stability and clarity in any forthcoming agreement.
Analysts observing the region note that the attractiveness of direct talks hinges on several factors. First, both sides must trust the process enough to sit at the table without a wide array of intermediaries. Second, any agreement would need robust, verifiable guarantees to reduce the risk of future provocations. Third, the international community appears ready to provide monitoring mechanisms that can deter escalations while respecting national sovereignty. These considerations reflect a nuanced balance between self-determination and regional security that many observers say will shape negotiations in the months ahead.
For policymakers and observers in the United States and Canada, the possibility of bilateral negotiations carries practical implications. It could streamline diplomatic engagement and accelerate set terms that reflect current realities on the ground. Yet it also raises questions about enforcement, the role of international law, and the durability of commitments once signatories return to domestic politics. In this context, the idea of direct talks does not eliminate the need for regional stability measures or credible assurances from external partners. Instead, it suggests a layered framework where bilateral dialogue is supported by international norms and monitoring as a backstop against relapse into conflict.
As the dialogue evolves, analysts stress the importance of clear, written guarantees, transparent mechanisms for verification, and a credible timeline for implementing provisions. They also emphasize that any peace agreement must address not only border arrangements but also broader security assurances, economic cooperation, and the protection of civilian rights. The ongoing debate demonstrates the complexity of securing durable peace in a region long marked by suspicion and periodic violence. The next steps will reveal whether both capitals can translate political will into concrete action that holds under scrutiny from regional and international observers.
In summary, the current discourse underscores a potential shift toward direct, bilateral negotiation between Azerbaijan and Armenia, with external support framed as optional guarantees rather than mandatory mediators. Whether this approach proves workable will depend on mutual confidence, enforceable guarantees, and a shared commitment to long-term stability in the South Caucasus.
At the heart of the conversation is a simple but powerful idea: when both sides can talk openly, progress becomes more plausible. The question remains how such talks can be structured to foster trust, deter aggression, and deliver a peace agreement that endures beyond political cycles and regional shifts. The coming months are likely to reveal whether this attractive proposition translates into a practical path forward or if a mediated framework remains essential for achieving lasting peace in the region. At present, the emphasis is on direct dialogue paired with credible accountability measures across the relevant international landscape.