NORMALISATION POSTPONED?

The main event of the Armenian-Azerbaijani normalisation process was the news that the summit of Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders slated for the end of October in Brussels was cancelled. Therefore, the meeting of prime ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, Ali Asadov and Nikol Pashinian, mediated by the head of the Georgian government Irakli Garibashvili generated some optimism. On October 23, the first 3+3 meeting of the foreign ministers of the two countries took place after a long pause in Tehran. Although it demonstrated the possibility of direct dialogue even in third countries, the lack of encouraging statements showed how far the sides were from concluding a peace treaty.

New ghost stories

Armenian Prime Minister has once again stated that Armenia was ready to sign a peace treaty with Azerbaijan by the end of the year. However, these words contradict the statements and actions of his own and other Armenian politicians.

Thus, on October 25, during the meeting with his Canadian counterpart Melanie Joly, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan focused attention on the issue of Azerbaijan's alleged aggression against Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as possible threats as a result of Baku's alleged seizure of the Zangezur corridor.

Apparently, the idea is to obtain guarantees from the West that they will not allow Azerbaijan to attack Armenia and seize the Zangezur corridor. Anyway, this is how Armenia itself likes to interpret the situation.

On October 5, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev had a telephone conversation with Charles Michel, President of the European Council. The latter said that Baku could not have "territorial claims against Armenia" and demanded to guarantee the "mutual recognition by Baku and Yerevan of each other's territorial integrity". By doing so, Michel signalled to Yerevan that he shared Yerevan's concerns and would act in accordance with this vision of the problem.

Meanwhile, Baku constantly emphasises the absurdity of claims on Azerbaijan's plans to invade Armenia. This was once again reminded to Politico by Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan Hikmet Hajiyev, who said that Baku had no plans to invade Zangezur after it failed to agree on the opening of the transport corridor. The project "has lost relevance for us. Instead we can implement it with Iran," Hajiyev said.

The more guarantors of security, the better

Nevertheless, Yerevan continues to hide behind the imaginary slogan of "expected threat from Azerbaijan" and to expand the presence of extra-regional players in Armenia. Apparently, to use them as a buffer. By encouraging the expansion of the mission by all means, Yerevan welcomed Canada's initiative to join the EU Civilian Observer Mission in Armenia. But it is difficult to classify Canada as a European country, isn't it?

In addition, Yerevan is pushing the West to impose sanctions against Baku for alleged "ethnic cleansing" in the Garabagh Economic Region.

The statements and actions of the Armenian prime minister clearly show Armenia's extremely contradictory position on the current regional situation. In his interview with The Wall Street Journal, Pashinian was quite optimistic in his assessment of the prospects for a peaceful settlement with Baku, emphasising that "the future of the region lies in opening a land link between Azerbaijan and Türkiye through Armenia".

Yet, Pashinian has previously repeatedly accused Baku of "ethnic cleansing" and has not changed his position on the issue. In the interview, he notes that it is necessary to focus on Yerevan's relations with Ankara and Baku instead of Moscow. That he "does not see any advantages in the continued presence of Russian military bases in Armenia," reiterating his line on distancing himself from Russia. He also noted that Yerevan was looking for new partners, as Moscow "has failed to fulfil its allied commitments."

Three plus three equals five

A day earlier in Tehran, Ararat Mirzoyan actively discussed with his colleagues from Azerbaijan, Türkiye, Russia and Iran the issues related to limiting the influence of extra-regional players on the regional processes in the Caucasus. Most of the participants agreed that the presence of such actors in the region was undesirable. In other words, they made it clear that they did not want to see military personnel from the US or France, as well as a number of other European countries in the South Caucasus. To a certain extent, this was a signal to Armenia, which remains committed to any attempts to attract to the region new countries ready to support Yerevan's foreign policy ambitions to realise their own interests.

Incidentally, this was the first meeting of foreign ministers in the 3+3 format. In general, if the 3+3 format (including Georgia) renders itself as an effective platform, the parties can start discussions on a sustainable regional agenda, to enter into a direct dialogue to discuss the problematic aspects of mutual relations.

No one wants a new regional war. Each of the parties wants to make the most of their transport and transit position. Therefore, no one sees an alternative to dialogue, including negotiations in the multilateral format.

The issue of transport was also discussed in Tehran during bilateral discussions, including between the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Iran. Jeyhun Bayramov underlined that the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway line, the North-South corridor and the Azerbaijan-Iran-Türkiye trilateral format are a clear examples of how these projects can contribute to the good of all the countries involved. The positive impact of these projects and formats is not limited only to the regional countries, but covers partners in a wider geography.

After the Tehran meeting, even Yerevan started talking about the prospects of unblocking communications. Thus, in his keynote address at the New Silk Road conference in Tbilisi on October 26, Nikol Pashinian particularly mentioned his country's desire to become a peaceful crossroads linking all the countries of the region through transport arteries. However, he did not specify how he was going to do this with the existing approaches unacceptable to both Azerbaijan and Türkiye.

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian stated that the wars in the South Caucasus were left behind, and regional states needed to discuss the agenda of peaceful cooperation. Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan discussed this issue with his Armenian and Russian counterparts. Azerbaijani foreign minister had a dialogue with his Turkish, Iranian, and Russian counterparts.

Remarkably, there is no information about contacts between Sergei Lavrov and Ararat Mirzoyan. Apparently, the crisis in relations between the two countries, especially after the visit of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian to Strasbourg and his statements made in the European Parliament, has deepened to the extent that made any dialogue between the parties unnecessary. This is perhaps the first such incident in the history of Russian-Armenian relations.

In addition, the television programme on the Armenian prime minister and his activities aired recently on Channel One of the Russian TV caused another scandal in the relations between the countries.

The final statement adopted at the end of the five-party discussions in Tehran reflects the main topics of discussions. All the sides positively assessed the outcome of the summit and reaffirmed that the platform was open for Georgia's equal participation.

Meeting postponed. What about mediation?

In the last days of October, it became clear that the solution of issues left over from the conflict with Armenia was no longer urging.

It is also more or less clear why the Brussels summit failed. It is assumed that the issue of the return of the Karabakh Armenians to Azerbaijan under special guarantees is a priority. This was confirmed by the EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus Toivo Klaar : "Our goal is for the Armenians of Karabakh to return to their homes. We underline the importance of the Granada meeting, which President Aliyev did not attend, and are now trying to organise a Pashinian-Aliyev meeting in Brussels". In other words, there was no need for Aliyev to visit Brussels when the main issue on agenda was not a peace treaty, but the return of Armenians to Karabakh.

Nevertheless, Klaar made it clear that there was still a hope. "Over the past few weeks, Azerbaijan and Armenia have openly expressed their commitment to peace talks, in particular to the Brussels process led by EU Council President Charles Michel," Klaar said. He added that Brussels was working on the possibility of a new meeting.

But Klaar made an inaccurate remark in his statement. In fact, Charles Michel is not leading the organisation of the Brussels meeting, he is only mediating the process. The continuation of the Brussels talks depends largely on the willingness of the involved parties rather than the party leading the negotiation process.