YEREVAN: The recent meeting in Kazan between Azerbaijan and Armenia, marked by the attendance of high-level officials, represents a tentative step forward in the long-standing conflict between the two nations. This comes after previous diplomatic efforts faltered, with Armenia’s last-minute withdrawal from talks in July and the cancellation of a planned meeting between parliamentary speakers, exacerbating tensions. The Kazan meeting is viewed as a potential reset for the peace process, but questions remain regarding its sustainability.

According to Trend News Agency, the Kazan discussions have managed to achieve consensus on 80% of the peace treaty text, but the unresolved 20% includes contentious issues, such as Armenia’s constitutional claims to Karabakh. These outstanding matters pose significant obstacles to a lasting agreement. Meanwhile, international actors have shown increased interest, with the United States sending representatives and President Joe Biden addressing leaders of both countries in effo
rts to push for a resolution. However, the complexity of the situation remains, particularly with Armenia’s constitutional ambiguities threatening the stability of any agreement reached.

Azerbaijan’s cautious approach to the negotiations is evident as it prioritizes agreements that ensure full implementation and adherence to territorial integrity. The initial success of agreeing to return four villages in the Gazakh region without external mediation marks a small but significant step forward, although it remains fragile. Armenia’s readiness to ratify the peace treaty has been perceived as potentially strategic, possibly aimed more at buying time than demonstrating genuine commitment.

The broader geopolitical landscape further complicates the peace process. While Western powers, including the United States, apply diplomatic pressure for a resolution, Russia remains pivotal as a mediator given its historical ties to both nations. Azerbaijan remains wary of premature agreements that may later be nullified due
to unresolved constitutional disputes, emphasizing the importance of robust legal guarantees.

The negotiations, while promising, remain preliminary. The path to enduring peace demands not only diplomatic agility but also a firm commitment to core national interests on both sides. Armenia’s delay tactics, characterized by introducing demands that exceed international law norms, continue to hinder progress. Azerbaijan remains steadfast in its commitment to territorial integrity, facing resistance from Armenia’s unwillingness to compromise.

Ultimately, the future of peace in the South Caucasus hinges on the ability of both nations to move beyond political posturing and engage in a meaningful settlement. With the international community closely watching, the resolution of key unresolved issues, particularly constitutional claims and border questions, will determine whether the Kazan meeting signifies a genuine shift toward peace or merely a temporary pause in hostilities.