Climate discords, Armenian manipulations, Ukraine's struggles, and Middle East battles Caliber.Az weekly review

The Caliber.Az editorial team presents the latest episode of the "Sobitiya" (Events) program hosted by Murad Abiyev, covering the key news of the week related to Azerbaijan and beyond.

AZERBAIJAN

The COP29 climate conference continues to unfold, marked by sharp disagreements between the collective West and the Global South over the final document, which outlines the necessary financial investments for climate protection and the countries willing to shoulder the funding.

Several participants at COP29 found the proposed annual sum of $250 billion for financial assistance to developing countries from industrialized nations to be insufficient. Despite being 2.5 times higher than current assistance levels, climate activists and representatives from some countries insist that this amount should be significantly increased. According to a UN expert group, by 2030, developing countries will require around $1 trillion in external aid, and by 2035, this amount will rise to $1.3 trillion.

The tense negotiations on the agreement are still ongoing, and while the final document may be signed by the time the program airs, it is also possible that no agreement will be reached.

The climate conference has somewhat overshadowed discussions on the Armenia-Azerbaijan settlement, though provocations still occurred. U.S. Senator Frank Pallone, known for his strongly anti-Azerbaijan stance, arrived in Baku for COP29 at the invitation of the UN. Instead of meeting with President Ilham Aliyev as expected, Pallone was greeted by protests from Azerbaijani society, uncomfortable questions from journalists, and the view of the War Trophy Park in Baku from his hotel room window. Dissatisfied with this reception, the senator left the country prematurely.

On November 22, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan gave an interview to public television, noting "certain progress" in negotiations with Azerbaijan. According to Pashinyan, both Armenia and Azerbaijan need mutual recognition based on Soviet-era borders, followed by a cautious establishment of economic ties. He claimed that Armenia proposed to Baku the withdrawal of EU observers from border areas subject to delimitation. Regarding the possibility of signing a peace treaty with Azerbaijan by the end of the year, Pashinyan promised to "do everything possible, 100% and even more," to achieve this.

Pashinyan also added that Armenia is trying to dispel Baku’s concerns about territorial claims in the Armenian Constitution. He reiterated the absurd and manipulative claim that Azerbaijan's Constitution also includes territorial claims against Armenia, but that Yerevan does not demand changes, as it "would lead the process into a deadlock."

As we can see, on the key issue—the Armenian constitution—Pashinyan is still not ready for decisive action. Thus, the possibility of signing a peace agreement by the end of this year remains little more than background noise.

This is not surprising, given that Pashinyan’s actions increasingly indicate external control over Armenia. Recently, Pashinyan asked several ministers of the security sector to resign. Surprisingly, this wave of resignations did not raise questions from France or the U.S. Moreover, according to our information, the ministers asked to step down were involved in revealing Armenia's secret role as a bridge between the West, particularly France, and Iran. It is reported that during Pashinyan’s meeting with French President Macron on November 7 in Budapest, as part of the European Political Community summit, Macron gave instructions to Pashinyan to convey messages to Iran.

Under these circumstances, with Armenia's foreign policy effectively subordinated to Paris, discussing long-term peaceful plans for Armenia seems practically meaningless.

UKRAINE – RUSSIA

The Russian army continues its assault on settlements in the Donetsk region and beyond, while the situation remains unchanged in Russia’s Kursk region.

In what appears to be an effort to strengthen its negotiating position on Ukraine ahead of Donald Trump’s return to office, Moscow has launched its most powerful missile and drone strike on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure in months. In response, Western media reported that Joe Biden had authorized Ukraine to strike deep into Russian territory using American missiles. Following suit, the UK and France granted similar permissions. This development prompted Russian President Vladimir Putin to sign an updated nuclear doctrine, easing conditions for the use of nuclear weapons in response to non-nuclear attacks by third parties.

Kyiv wasted no time utilizing Western authorization, striking two facilities within Russia’s Kursk and Bryansk regions with Western-made missiles. Shortly thereafter, President Putin addressed the nation, announcing a retaliatory strike on Ukraine using the Oreshnik ballistic missile in its non-nuclear hypersonic configuration, which he claimed is impervious to any air defence system.

The West has shown remarkable composure in the face of Moscow’s nuclear ultimatum, likely recognizing that the use of nuclear weapons is not in Russia’s interest, particularly given its military campaign’s current trajectory. Most experts agree that even with permission to use Western missiles, Ukraine is unlikely to decisively alter the course of the war. Thus, both the Western authorization and Putin’s nuclear rhetoric seem to be largely symbolic, aimed at psychological pressure and enhancing negotiating leverage.

However, to underline the seriousness of its intentions without resorting to nuclear weapons, Russia may significantly escalate conventional attacks on Ukraine in the near future.

MIDDLE EAST

For the first time since the launch of its ground operation in Lebanon, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have deployed heavy artillery to the territory, aiming to provide fire support to IDF ground forces currently storming Hezbollah's second line of defense in border areas.

Meanwhile, negotiations mediated by Washington between Israel, Lebanon, and Hezbollah continue. As part of a proposed ceasefire agreement, a special oversight body led by the United States may be established in Lebanon. Reports suggest that both Lebanon and Hezbollah have approved the U.S.-backed agreement, leaving the ball in Israel’s court.

In parallel, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

Netanyahu’s office condemned the decision as "antisemitic," calling the ICC a "biased and discriminatory political body." The statement declared that Israel "categorically rejects the false and absurd accusations" outlined in the warrant. Notably, Gaza’s Hamas-controlled health ministry claims that the death toll from Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023, has risen to nearly 44,000. Israel disputes these figures, describing them as disinformation.

Global reactions to the ICC's decision have been divided, highlighting a broader crisis in the international system. While some argue that political pressures have rendered ICC decisions biased, others point out the inconsistency in enforcement, even in countries that acknowledge its jurisdiction.

Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala's statement on the social platform X adds an intriguing perspective. He criticized the ICC's decision, arguing that it equates "elected representatives of a democratic state with leaders of an Islamist terrorist organization."

This remark raises deeper questions about the inherent assumption of moral infallibility among leaders of democratic nations. Such a perspective is both unique and flawed, as it presupposes that representatives of democracies are incapable of committing crimes—a notion that collapses under scrutiny.

Thus, the crisis is not only in the global security framework but also within the value systems underpinning international justice.