Armenia and Azerbaijan have announced the completion of negotiations on a peace agreement, setting the stage for the formal end of over three decades of hostilities. 

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov told journalists on March 13 that the final sticking points in the negotiations had been resolved, with Armenia accepting the last two outstanding provisions. Armenia’s foreign ministry echoed the statement, acknowledging that the text was ready and that discussions would now focus on the timing and location of the signing. 

Yet, while both sides publicly endorse the deal, deeper structural and political obstacles remain, particularly regarding constitutional amendments in Armenia and long-standing territorial disputes.

Obstacles to implementation

The peace deal represents the most serious attempt at reconciliation since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it is also the product of intense geopolitical pressure. Both governments have framed the agreement as a necessary compromise — Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan explicitly stated that such trade-offs were essential to securing peace. However, Azerbaijan has insisted that constitutional changes in Armenia must follow as a precondition for the agreement’s full implementation, particularly the removal of references that implicitly challenge Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over Karabakh.

Moreover, while the document outlines mutual recognition of territorial integrity, it sidesteps some of the most contentious territorial disputes. Issues surrounding Soviet-era enclaves, the so-called Zangezur corridor, and border demarcations remain unresolved, suggesting that while this agreement may establish a framework for peace, it is unlikely to be the final word on regional disputes. 

A key Armenian concession appears to be the withdrawal of EU monitoring missions from the border and the waiver of international legal claims against Azerbaijan — two longstanding demands from Baku. 

Yet, Azerbaijani officials have declined to comment on the specifics, fueling speculation over the extent to which Armenia’s government had to cede ground to secure the deal.

Pashinyan’s domestic position is fragile, with significant opposition to the deal from nationalist factions and former officials. The constitutional amendments could take years to materialise, raising the risk of political upheaval in Yerevan. 

Richard Giragosian, head of the Regional Studies Center in Yerevan, has suggested that constitutional reforms in Armenia could take until 2026 at the earliest, meaning that a fully ratified peace may still be years away despite the diplomatic breakthrough.

Moreover, while the peace deal may establish diplomatic relations and stabilise parts of the border, it does not eliminate the deep-rooted mistrust between the two nations. Recent border clashes, nationalist rhetoric, and competing territorial claims suggest that while this deal is a major step forward, it is not a guarantee of enduring peace. 

Skeptics argue that Azerbaijan’s long-term strategic ambitions, including the pursuit of a land corridor through southern Armenia, could strain the agreement’s implementation. Some observers, such as political analyst Rauf Mirqadirov, have cautioned that without an unconditional recognition of territorial integrity, the deal risks becoming another fragile truce rather than a lasting settlement, Mirqadirov said in an interview with RFE/RL Azerbaijani bureau. 

International reactions

Outside the region, French President Emmanuel Macron welcomed the development, declaring that there were no remaining barriers to peace. US Congressman Joe Wilson, a vocal supporter of the opposition in Georgia, hailed the agreement as a step toward regional stability, borrowing rhetoric from US President Donald Trump’s political movement by calling for a “Great South Caucasus”.

However, not all international actors are celebrating. Moscow has yet to issue a formal response, but analysts like Olesya Vartanyan suggest that the agreement’s timing — coinciding with ongoing US-Russia talks over Ukraine — is unlikely to sit well with the Kremlin. The deal explicitly calls for the removal of “third-party forces” from the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, a likely reference to Russian peacekeepers and security forces. 

The broader strategic picture suggests a recalibration of power in the region. "We may call it a Victory Day," said Fuad Chiragov, deputy director of the Baku-based Center for Studies of the South Caucasus. 

Azerbaijan, emboldened by military victories in 2020 and 2023, has pursued a more assertive diplomatic posture, leveraging its energy partnerships with Europe to gain influence. Armenia, historically aligned with Moscow, has increasingly looked to the West for security guarantees.

Azerbaijan’s conflicting signals

Azerbaijani state-affiliated media and President Ilham Aliyev himself are giving mixed signals. While the country’s foreign ministry declared that Armenia and Azerbaijan had reached an agreement on a peace treaty, state-controlled outlets are simultaneously pushing narratives that Armenia is preparing for war. 

This contradiction raises concerns over whether Baku’s commitment to peace is genuine or if the announcement is a tactical move to exert further diplomatic pressure on Yerevan.

At the 12th Global Baku Forum, that began under Aliyev’s patronage on March 12, the Azerbaijani president delivered a speech in which he revisited familiar themes of victimhood, historical grievances, and distrust toward Armenia, even as his government was preparing to sign a landmark peace agreement.

While noting that most of the peace treaty had been agreed upon, Aliyev said that Azerbaijan would not forget the years of occupation and suffering caused by Armenian aggression. His remarks about the genocide in Khojaly, the destruction of mosques, and ethnic cleansing during the First Karabakh War were in stark contrast to the diplomatic tone expected from a leader on the verge of signing a historic peace agreement.

More concerning were his comments about Armenia’s military buildup and European support for Yerevan, suggesting that Azerbaijan sees a renewed military confrontation as inevitable. He accused France of pushing Armenia toward a new war by supplying weapons and insisted that European Union monitors on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border were spies gathering intelligence for a military campaign. These statements are not just rhetorical posturing — they directly contradict the narrative of peace and reconciliation that Azerbaijan’s foreign ministry and Western partners have been promoting.

At the same time, Caliber.az, a media outlet widely considered to be closely linked to Azerbaijan’s security services, has ramped up warnings that Armenia is preparing for a new war. According to the outlet, Yerevan has launched unprecedented military preparations, extending reservist training programmes from April 1 to June 13, while secretly coordinating with Western allies for a lightning-fast military offensive aimed at occupying Azerbaijani territory. 

The report claims that Armenia is constructing fortified military positions along the border, using underground tunnels for sabotage operations, and increasing purchases of French and Indian weaponry for offensive operations. These allegations are not just speculative fear-mongering — they create a pretext for Azerbaijan to justify preemptive military action. 

Some argue if Baku truly believed peace was imminent, its state media would not be pushing claims that Armenia is preparing for war. The framing of these reports suggests that Azerbaijan is laying the groundwork for military escalation while officially advocating for peace. Some analysts suggest such articles make sense in retrospect, however, as Aliyev wants to be able to say domestically that "Armenia was threatening war but Azerbaijan coerced them into making concessions".

While the peace agreement represents a diplomatic victory for both Baku and Yerevan, the reality on the ground remains fluid. The coming months will determine whether this breakthrough solidifies into a durable settlement or if entrenched disputes and political resistance derail the process. If the deal holds, it could mark the South Caucasus’ most significant geopolitical shift in decades, turning Armenia and Azerbaijan from adversaries into pragmatic partners. If it falters, however, the region could once again descend into instability, proving that while peace may be negotiated on paper, its survival depends on far more than words.