Aliyev-Putin talks and the Israel-Hamas agreement Caliber.Az weekly review

Caliber.Az presents the latest episode of the program “Sobitiya” (Events) with Murad Abiyev, featuring the week’s main news related to Azerbaijan and beyond.

Azerbaijan

The 12th Summit of the leaders of the member states of the Organization of Turkic States was held in Gabala. Following the meeting, the Gabala Declaration was adopted—a comprehensive document outlining the Organization’s activities for the coming years. These activities cover areas such as economic, cultural, and interpersonal cooperation.

Importantly, the document places special emphasis on collaboration in the political sphere, particularly in foreign policy and security. Among other measures, it sets goals for creating a platform for strategic forecasting shared by all members of the Organization of Turkic States.

This is truly significant—in a rapidly changing world, experiencing a crisis of international law and facing numerous risks, it is critically important for these brotherly states to combine intellectual efforts, creating a powerful synergistic effect, metaphorically forming a shield and arrows for the entire Turkic world.

The security factor was also specifically highlighted in the speech of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, who, among other things, proposed holding joint military exercises of the member states of the Organization of Turkic States in Azerbaijan next year.

It is quite clear that such proposals are not made spontaneously; they reflect the overall mindset and readiness of all member countries to strengthen their partnership. The Turkic world has sent a message to the outside world—we are ready to defend our interests together.

After the summit in Gabala, President Aliyev travelled to Dushanbe to participate in the meeting of the Council of CIS Heads of State. Perhaps the most important event of this visit was the one-on-one meeting between Ilham Aliyev and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

As is known, the leaders of the two countries had not met in this format for quite some time, due to the crisis in relations that followed the downing of an Azerbaijani passenger plane over Grozny. Moscow’s delay in taking responsibility for this incident deepened the crisis.

Last week, when the meeting between the two leaders was announced, experts began speculating that President Putin might offer some form of explanation during the discussions.

And they indeed followed. In brief, Vladimir Putin stated that he reiterates and updates his apologies offered immediately after the disaster for the tragedy that occurred in Russian airspace.

The Russian president further emphasised that a legal assessment of the actions of the officials involved would be conducted, and compensation would be paid. Most importantly, for the first time, the Russian leader acknowledged that the cause of the disaster was Russian air defence, although he explained it as being due to debris from the missiles rather than their warheads.

Let’s not dwell on the minor inaccuracies in Putin’s words. The context of his statements is what matters most—after nine months since the disaster, the Russian side finally acknowledged its responsibility.

Now, the two sides will need to, to some extent, rebuild a dialogue of trust. A solid foundation for this process could be the economic ties between the countries, which have not disappeared and, on the contrary, hold good prospects for development.

Middle East

The world’s attention is also focused on the Middle East. Following talks in Egypt between representatives of Israel and Hamas, both sides agreed on the first stage of a deal to end the war in Gaza.

Under the agreement, within 72 hours of approval of this stage by the Israeli government, Hamas will release all living hostages and hand over the bodies of the deceased. In turn, Israel will release 250 Palestinians serving long-term sentences in Israeli prisons, as well as 1,700 individuals arrested since the start of the war on October 7, 2023.

Moreover, Israel has already begun withdrawing troops from the Gaza Strip into a buffer zone. Currently, all of Israel is effectively holding its breath in anticipation of the return of 20 living hostages. According to media reports, their release is expected on October 13.

Voices of scepticism are already being heard, suggesting that the agreement may not last long. In particular, there are concerns that Israel, once it regains the hostages, might violate the deal and resume military operations in Gaza.

However, several factors work against such a scenario. First, the deal is being implemented under the personal patronage of U.S. President Donald Trump, who has staked his reputation on it. Notably, he has already called it “historic.”

Second, it appears that holding hostages has ceased to be a significant leverage for Hamas. After all, the fewer living hostages remain, the lower the chance of manipulating Israeli public opinion. And if, up to now, Hamas has been unable to seriously sway public sentiment against Netanyahu’s government, the situation will only worsen for the group moving forward.

Currently, the ratio of living hostages to the deceased is 20 to 80. This appears to be a critical point. The 20 living hostages still give the impression that the deaths of the others were accidental. The release of these 20 hostages still appears as a gesture of goodwill, but if their number drops, say to ten, Hamas will bear the stigma of hostage killers, leaving no room for negotiation.

In other words, the hostages have turned from a resource into a heavy burden for Hamas. They need to be returned as quickly as possible in order to create leverage against Israel, which, due to the number of civilian casualties in Gaza and the overall humanitarian situation, is at the peak of international isolation.

Third, the return of the hostages will, on one hand, create among Israelis the sense that the subject of the conflict has been exhausted, while on the other hand, it will not affect Hamas’s ability to resist. Yes, that ability is not what it was a year ago, but it will suffice for a while.

And this “while” could stretch on, potentially putting Netanyahu’s government in an even greater predicament. Previously, some Israelis viewed the war with Hamas as a means to secure the return of hostages; now, that reason for a prolonged conflict will no longer exist.

Fourth, the continuation of the war means increased civilian casualties in Gaza, which will only exacerbate Israel’s international isolation.

Fifth, Israel is already weary of the war—it inflicts significant economic damage and contributes to a growing number of Jews leaving the country.

And finally, sixth, ending the war would allow Israel to resume its currently frozen cooperation with several Arab countries under the Abraham Accords, and potentially involve other states, primarily Saudi Arabia. A military operation and control over Gaza promise Israel nothing but isolation. Thus, full compliance with the deal is in Netanyahu’s own interest. With his considerable eloquence, he will be able to present it as the optimal solution to the problem.

It seems that all interested parties have reached such an understanding, and this is what allows Trump to be confident in the successful outcome of his peace plan. However, this does not mean the problem is fully resolved. Hamas may comply with the next stages of the plan—such as disarmament. Meanwhile, nothing prevents it from reemerging in a different form, as a new party that participates in the “government of Palestinian technocrats,” which is also envisaged in the subsequent stages of the deal, not yet formally agreed upon.

There are many questions surrounding the future governance of Gaza. How will Hamas be disarmed? Will the underground weapons tunnels be destroyed? How will the technocrat government be formed, and how will it share authority with the international oversight body?

On the one hand, everything seems complicated. On the other hand, for President Trump, this is an excellent opportunity to prove himself as an effective peacemaker and to earn the coveted Nobel Prize—but only next year, since this year the committee awarded it to someone else.

But that is another story entirely. For now, I bid you farewell until the next episode of our program.