UNDECLARED DEFEAT

The May 14, 2023 talks between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia in Brussels with the participation of the EU President Charles Michel can well be the final point in a new round of developments between Baku and Yerevan. Even though there was no formal discussion on the withdrawal of troops or control over strategic heights, the outcome of the Brussels summit will undoubtedly largely determine further developments in Garabagh and on the conditional border between Azerbaijan and Armenia, albeit indirectly.

Behind the scenes in Brussels

Those who closely follow the normalisation of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as the European mediation efforts in this dialogue have perhaps noticed that Charles Michel's statement following the meeting was well in line with his previous theses on the European vector of the Armenian-Azerbaijani diplomacy. And these theses are undoubtedly in favour of Azerbaijan.

Brussels once again emphasised the recognition of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity (86,900 sq. km). This includes the territory of mainland Azerbaijan, including Garabagh. Yerevan has not even a theoretical chance to hide behind the talks of the self-determination of so-called Artsakh and so on. Yerevan also failed to insert a clause about the 1975 maps into the text of the final statement, which Azerbaijan obviously objected. This alone was a major diplomatic failure for Armenia.

Another disappointment for Yerevan was the humanitarian agenda. Armenia was requested to return two soldiers to Azerbaijan, but no mention was made of the Lachin road, where an Azerbaijani checkpoint was recently established.

Armed provocation failed either

Was this outcome of the Brussels summit a surprise for Pashinian and his team? In recent weeks and months Armenia has been openly flirting with the European Union, betting on its "exclusive" relationship with France and publicising the EU observer mission. Meanwhile, just before the Brussels round of negotiations, Armenia staged another provocation on the conditional border with Azerbaijan—near the Soyudlu gold mine (Sot mine) in Kalbajar.

Experienced people know that a 'war of playing on nerves' is always accompanied with a risk of spontaneous violations of ceasefire. But this time something different took place. On May 10, Armenia began shelling Azerbaijani positions. The country leadership was urged to stop the provocation. The next day, however, the shelling continued, with the calibre of weapons increased. Moreover, a group of snipers had been deployed in the area (!) in advance, which nullifies any assumptions on the randomness and spontaneity of the situation. Experts in Baku also draw attention to Armenia being rush to publish press releases on the incident and its coincidence with the meeting of the Armenian government, where Pashinyan traditionally voices his loudest statements.

The objective of Armenian authorities are clear. It was also clear that the Brussels round would not promise anything good for Yerevan. Especially amid the Washington talks between the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, when the US was very active in pushing for an early peace deal between the sides, numerous leaks report. The maximum Armenia could hope for was a minority status for the Armenians of Garabagh. Moreover, the US was talking about minority rights in both countries, that is—for Azerbaijanis expelled from Armenia as well. In such a situation, Yerevan had an excuse to try to disrupt the forthcoming talks in Brussels with military provocations.

Plus, the shooting took place precisely where Azerbaijan had already determined the border line. Secondly, Armenian troops were clearly trying to take control of a gold mine. Thirdly, Yerevan is still dreaming of new territorial seizures and seems to consider the Kalbajar route to be the most promising.

Armenia minus France

Apparently, Yerevan has failed to achieve any of its objectives. It has failed to apply coercive pressure on Azerbaijan. However, the destroyed command and staff vehicle is not the only unfortunate military reality for Armenia. Any attempts to disrupt the Brussels round have also failed. Finally, Charles Michel's final statement does not mention the withdrawal of troops, but underlines the need for border delimitation and demarcation.

Aspirations of Armenian authorities are well known. The dialogue in Brussels did not promise anything good for Yerevan from the very beginning. In fact, holding the Brussels summit is already a great success for European diplomacy, especially amid Armenian attempts to disrupt it.

After the Prague talks, European mediation efforts hung in limbo due to the destructive positions of France and Armenia. Yerevan insisted on Paris's involvement in the talks, which Azerbaijan strongly opposed. And here is the result: negotiations in Brussels took place without any participation by Paris, which is quite logical.

French President Emmanuel Macron is free to demand a special status for himself on the European stage. But in reality Paris is increasingly losing its political and diplomatic credibility, including on the European stage. Plus, Macron is facing the strongest protest movements within the country, including the protests of 'yellow waistcoats' and against the pension reform. His latest initiative has caused such strong indignation and rejection among the population, taking it to streets. Paris has been aggressively losing credibility due to its foreign policy failures, losing influence in its African colonies in particular. In such a situation, European leaders are least likely to turn the normalisation process between Azerbaijan and Armenia into a hostage of the French struggle for the votes of local Armenians. Stakes in the South Caucasus are too high, including for Europe. This includes oil, gas and the Middle Corridor. And if Paris, together with Yerevan, goes against European interests, Europe will pay attention and draw the necessary conclusions. We can even say that it is already drawing conclusions.

Yerevan fails to learn lessons

A simple analysis of Yerevan's diplomatic failures and defeats may not reveal the main reason behind them. The ongoing situation in Armenian diplomacy is a continuation of Azerbaijan's military victory in the 44-day war. In his keynote address on the occasion of the centennial anniversary celebrations of the national leader Heydar Aliyev in Shusha, President Ilham Aliyev said: "Our army is one of the strongest armies in the world both in terms of equipment and combat efficiency. Our army has demonstrated its strength on the battlefield. None of our soldiers retreated from the battlefield. This is our army. This is our people. The army is a part of our nation. The army is another home for the children of our nation, the ones that we raised. It was these children that defeated the enemy unarmed here, in Shusha, forced the retreat from our lands, hoisted our flag, the symbol of our pride, on this building and all the other liberated lands. We continue the construction of our army.  Our victory in the Second Garabagh War is a historic success, a historic victory for Azerbaijan."

Today Azerbaijan converts the results of this victory into a diplomatic success. Armenia's attempts to behave as if it still controls both Shusha and Zangilan will not end well for Yerevan.