Armenian pundit backs 3+3 format as only path to peace with Azerbaijan

There is no alternative to the “3+3” format for peace negotiations with Azerbaijan and concluding an agreement, political analyst Suren Surenyants told Armenian media.

After the November 9, 2020, agreement and the start of the conflict in Ukraine, Armenia, in his view, should have strengthened cooperation with existing mediators rather than seeking new ones, Caliber.Az reports.

“The terms outlined in the November 9 document are the best outcome that a defeated party [in the war] could have expected. This includes the ninth point (regarding the reopening of communications under the control of Russia’s FSB),” Surenyants noted, adding that any other arrangements for managing transport links currently under discussion would ultimately be less favourable for Armenia.

According to Surenyants, Armenia’s attempts to exit Russia's sphere of influence in search of alternative mediators only increase instability in the region.

“Thus, Armenia should not have changed its strategic course, as abandoning Russia’s mediation implies. However, Moscow has a more flexible stance on this matter than Armenia’s authorities,” the analyst said.

In this context, Surenyants referenced the recent “3+3” foreign ministers’ meeting in Istanbul, where Russia proposed this platform as a potential tool for reaching a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Surenyants emphasized that the “3+3” format is beneficial for Armenia as it brings together regional countries and key external powers capable of ensuring a balance of interests and security while implementing agreements.

“If Armenian authorities are truly interested in a political resolution, there is simply no alternative to the ‘3+3’ format. This platform includes regional countries and neighbouring powers that can play a balancing role in terms of logistics, security, and real influence,” he added.

As for Azerbaijan, the analyst noted that it is not interested in mediation, participating in negotiations primarily to maintain balance. Baku, he said, never declines a proposed platform first, knowing that Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan will likely do so. Surenyants believes that Armenia should avoid bilateral talks, as they could lead to catastrophic consequences.

The expert also expressed scepticism about Western mediation efforts. Commenting on letters from outgoing US President Joe Biden addressed to Armenia and Azerbaijan, Surenyants remarked that these “mean nothing,” since future U.S. policy in the region will depend on the new leader. Armenia’s expectations of Western support, in his view, are unrealistic.

Surenyants also sees France as an ineffective mediator, despite its pro-Armenian stance. In his view, Paris’ sympathies may be “pleasing to Armenian ears,” but they offer no tangible benefits and only erode Azerbaijan’s trust in France.

According to the political analyst, France will never assume formal obligations to Armenia, such as intervening in the event of an Azerbaijani military attack. Limited military-technical cooperation is possible, but it does not address Armenia’s core security challenges. Surenyants stressed that despite friendly relations, France does not offer real security guarantees and, therefore, cannot be Armenia’s strategic ally.

Surenyants regretted that Armenia’s efforts to seek new allies negatively impact relations with Russia without providing real security assurances in return. He noted that Armenian authorities and society often act more on emotion than on calculated reasoning, fueling unrealistic hopes in the West's empty promises.

In conclusion, Surenyants recalled that during the recent meeting in Istanbul, Russia, Iran, and Türkiye suggested that Armenia and Azerbaijan use the “3+3” format to finalize the peace treaty. However, despite the potential of this platform, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan stated that Yerevan does not view it as suitable for negotiations with Baku.

By Khagan Isayev