'Baku is not ready to sign document and tie its hands' - opinions from Yerevan
Baku and Yerevan agree on articles of peace treaty
Armenia and Azerbaijan have reached an agreement on the two provisions of the peace treaty that had previously remained unresolved. The announcement came from Baku, and Yerevan confirmed the information, emphasizing its readiness to begin consultations on the timing and location of the agreement’s signing.
While the Armenian side sought to discuss the timeline, Azerbaijan, at the level of its president and foreign minister, reiterated its preconditions. Baku demands amendments to Armenia’s constitution and the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, which had been responsible for mediating the Karabakh conflict.
Yerevan finds the dissolution of the Minsk Group an acceptable condition. However, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated that constitutional changes are not up for discussion with Azerbaijan, describing them as Armenia’s “internal matter.” He also stressed that the constitution “does not contain territorial claims against any country.”
JAMnews sought opinions from Armenian analysts on whether the agreement could be signed soon.
Some experts believe that Azerbaijan will not be able to delay the process indefinitely, evade responsibility, or blame Armenia for its reluctance to finalize the peace deal. They argue that the U.S., the EU, and Turkey, driven by their own interests, will not allow such stalling. Others suggest that Baku will do everything possible to postpone the signing and use the threat of force to extract further concessions from Armenia, given the current international climate.
Political analyst Hakob Badalyan is convinced that Azerbaijan has no interest in restricting its ability to use force:
“Baku will not tie its hands with an unnecessary signature—both literally and figuratively. As long as Azerbaijan believes the balance of power is in its favor, and as long as no new rules are established in the Caucasus or in global politics to deter its use of force, Baku will push for the maximum possible gains.”
- Why is Baku rejecting Yerevan’s proposals? Pashinyan’s take on regional unblocking
- ‘No point in revisiting 2020 statement’ – Secretary of Armenia’s Security Council
- Armenian NGOs сall on Pashinyan to maintain legal actions against Azerbaijan
- Opinion: ‘Aliyev makes threats because he cannot neutralise Armenia’s potential’
Azerbaijan rejects joint statement: reports from Yerevan and Baku
Azerbaijan was the first to announce the resolution of disputed provisions in the draft peace treaty. Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov stated that Armenia had accepted Azerbaijan’s proposals on the two remaining points of the agreement.
Shortly after, Armenia’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement confirming that it had conveyed its agreement through diplomatic channels regarding the unresolved provisions of the treaty.
According to the Armenian Foreign Ministry, Yerevan proposed issuing a joint statement with Baku. However, Azerbaijan opted to make a separate announcement.
“The peace agreement is ready for signing. The Republic of Armenia is prepared to begin consultations with the Republic of Azerbaijan on the timing and location of the signing,” the Armenian Foreign Ministry stated.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry reiterated that the key condition for signing the agreed text is amending Armenia’s constitution to “eliminate territorial claims against Azerbaijan.” Baku also emphasized the need to dissolve the OSCE Minsk Group, calling it “obsolete and non-functional.”
‘Agreement’s content is compromise” – Pashinyan
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan asserts that the peace agreement does not contain unilateral provisions. According to him, all articles apply equally to both Armenia and Azerbaijan. He also noted that clauses on the exclusion of third-party presence at the border and the mutual withdrawal of international complaints have “undergone slight evolution.”
“Once it became clear that we do not have and will not have ideal wording on this matter, we discussed the issue within the Security Council. In the end, we concluded that the current content can be considered a compromise option. Essentially, yes, under these circumstances, this is acceptable for Armenia,” he said.
When asked by journalists about what compromise Azerbaijan had made, Pashinyan only stated that the agreed text benefits both sides.
Previously, Armenian authorities indicated that Azerbaijan’s reference to third-party presence was aimed at EU civilian observers. Yerevan had maintained that their withdrawal would only be possible in areas where border delimitation had already been completed. So far, only 12 km of the 1,000-km border have been demarcated.
The reached agreement appeared to journalists as a shift in Armenia’s stance. However, Pashinyan clarified:
“We have not changed our position. We have changed our perception as a result of analyzing the text. Armenia has agreed to the provision that, once the peace agreement comes into force, neither side will deploy third-country forces along their shared border.”
Expert commentary
Political analyst Ruben Mehrabyan believes that if Azerbaijan refuses to sign the agreement until Armenia amends its constitution and dissolves the OSCE Minsk Group, it will face pressure from all sides:
“According to Armenian law, adopting a new constitution is not possible before 2027. And what is Azerbaijan saying? Essentially, it means they won’t sign the agreement before June 2027? Let them say so. But they don’t put it that way, they don’t say it outright. Azerbaijan is trying to stall and blame us for refusing to sign. I’m not sure they will succeed.”
Mehrabyan argues that the international community will not allow delays in signing the Armenian-Azerbaijani peace treaty as all provisions have been agreed upon.
At the same time, he emphasises that the text of the agreement remains unclear since it has not yet been published. He still has unanswered questions, including regarding the two provisions that have already been agreed upon.
Regarding the exclusion of third-party forces from the border, Meghrabyan wonders whether the EU’s civilian mission qualifies as a third-party force. He stresses that the observers are not stationed at the border but only approach certain areas for monitoring purposes.
Commenting on the condition to withdraw legal complaints from international courts, the analyst clarifies that this applies to intergovernmental lawsuits:
“There are 150,000 victims [Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh] living in Armenia and beyond. They can individually file lawsuits. The Armenian government cannot order them to go to court or not. Right? That’s all there is to it.”
Political analyst Hakob Badalyan on peace agreement: contradictions and unresolved issues
Political analyst Hakob Badalyan believes that commenting on the agreement is only possible after reviewing its full text. He recalls Yerevan’s proposal to withdraw EU observers from delimited areas, pointing out that statements from Armenian officials create a “contradictory” impression:
“The foreign minister says that observers will leave the border area after the delimitation process is completed, while the prime minister says they will withdraw after the agreement is signed.”
According to Badalyan, by demanding the withdrawal of international lawsuits, Baku is attempting to neutralize the only area where a certain balance exists:
“This is the one area where Azerbaijan does not have an advantage. Moreover, it has reasons to be concerned. Armenia’s legal arguments are much stronger, especially when considering the entire conflict resolution process, not just the 44-day war and the recent years.”
He argues that Azerbaijan’s demands to amend Armenia’s constitution and dissolve the Minsk Group indicate that Baku is not ready to sign the document:
“I wouldn’t rule out that even after these conditions are met, Baku will introduce new demands.”
Badalyan stresses that the peace process is not solely dependent on the peace agreement itself. Separate discussions are taking place on border delimitation and the reopening of communications.
He believes that the real obstacles to establishing peace lie not between Armenia and Azerbaijan but on a broader, international level. In his view, this is why Baku has opted to fragment the process, ensuring it always retains room for maneuver, particularly regarding the use of force, without being bound by agreements reached in any specific area.
“Key issues determining the establishment of peace, and how balanced it is, have effectively been left out of the peace agreement. And at least for now, they remain unresolved,” Badalyan stated.
Given these circumstances, he believes the agreement itself is not the decisive factor. Therefore, even its signing cannot guarantee peace or prevent Azerbaijan from resorting to force.
Baku and Yerevan agree on articles of peace treaty
