Dialogue on peace in Yerevan and postponed Budapest summit Caliber.Az weekly review

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

Azerbaijan – Armenia

Last week saw a state visit by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to Kazakhstan. It was a very busy trip, featuring one-on-one meetings between leaders, participation in the session of the Supreme Interstate Council, and, finally, a joint press statement.

If one were to highlight the main theme of the events and statements by the two presidents, it would likely be the deepening of economic and business cooperation, along with related issues of investment. Of course, significant attention was also paid to the backbone of economic cooperation across the entire region — namely, the Middle Corridor, including its integral part, the Zangezur Corridor.

In Astana, President Aliyev announced an event of exceptional importance for the entire region. Azerbaijan has lifted all restrictions on the transit of goods to Armenia that had been in place since the occupation. The first such transit shipment was Kazakh grain bound for Armenia. Aliyev emphasised: “I do believe that this is also a good indicator that peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia is no longer just on paper but is already a matter of practice.” 

It is now fitting to turn to another major regional development. In Yerevan, representatives of civil society from Armenia and Azerbaijan held a historic meeting. The event is groundbreaking for at least two reasons. First, an Azerbaijani plane made a charter flight to the Armenian capital for the first time in three decades. Second, this is the first meeting of its kind conducted without intermediaries. Both the Azerbaijani and Armenian sides are independently setting the agenda, marking a significant step forward toward mutual understanding and the development of trust-building measures.

And here, I think it is very important to highlight one point. It is often said that once peace is achieved, Azerbaijan and Armenia should simply go their separate ways, or even build a symbolic wall between them. But that is simply impossible. Peace inherently requires interaction. On the other hand, simply erecting a wall will not prevent conflict. There is no wall that cannot be broken if people’s minds are driven by hatred. Likewise, there is no guaranteed way to protect oneself from future conflicts — such a thing simply does not exist. Building trust, and eventually fostering cooperation between the countries, is not a panacea either. But at the very least, it allows the construction of a foundation of interaction, from which the disadvantages of conflict can be clearly seen.

Ukraine – Russia

The Russian army continues its offensive near Kupiansk in the Kharkiv region and Pokrovsk in the Donetsk region of Ukraine. Reports also indicate that Quarantine Island, located near Kherson, has been captured, sharply increasing the risk to this major city.

Global developments surrounding the conflict have been equally intense. Following a phone call with Vladimir Putin, and then with Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House, Donald Trump urged both sides to hold their positions and establish a ceasefire without additional conditions. Subsequently, a coalition of European supporters issued a statement backing Trump’s proposal. Most notably, the U.S. side announced that the previously planned summit between the leaders of the United States and Russia has been postponed.

Russia then conducted nuclear drills in the Barents Sea. Meanwhile, the European Union imposed its 19th package of sanctions against Russia. And, for the first time since returning to the White House, Donald Trump introduced sanctions targeting Russia — specifically, against the oil companies Lukoil and Rosneft. More precisely, these sanctions are directed at buyers of oil from these two companies. They have been given a one-month period to either cease dealings with the aforementioned companies or face U.S. sanctions.

Navigating this kaleidoscope of events is no easy task. One thing is clear: the tightening of Trump’s stance cannot simply be attributed to European actions. Rather, it appears to be a coincidence. The key event driving the recent moves of the U.S. president lies not in the past, but in the future — a point noted by many commentators.

As we know, Donald Trump is scheduled to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping on October 31 in South Korea. The context of this upcoming meeting is extremely serious: trade relations between the two countries, which are heavily imbalanced in China’s favor, have caused considerable frustration in Washington. Adding to this are issues regarding Chinese access to American technologies, and the broader risk of China surpassing the U.S. in advanced technologies, including military capabilities. This situation poses a challenge not only to U.S. global hegemony but also to its status as a world power and to America’s economic well-being, with all the resulting consequences. Issues of this magnitude could potentially lead to armed conflict in the future.

To temper Beijing’s geopolitical ambitions, it is crucial for the Americans to demonstrate that they have reached an understanding with Russia — a country seen as a necessary and desirable partner by both sides. Trump appeared to expect a breakthrough in U.S.-Russian relations from Putin, which, of course, required an end to the war in Ukraine. One can only speculate about the economic incentives promised to Russia in exchange for freezing the conflict.

The problem is that it is difficult for Putin to present economic concessions as a victory in a war that has already claimed countless lives. The Kremlin needs to point to at least one area where Russia achieved an unequivocal success. It seems that this area is the Donbass. And it appears that Trump was eager to convince Zelenskyy to accept this plan. Not without reason, The Washington Post reported that Moscow is prepared to withdraw from previously occupied parts of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions if Kyiv concedes the remaining territory of the Donetsk region under its control.

Of course, we understand that Zelenskyy rejected this proposal. Yes, Europeans cannot sustain Ukrainian resistance for long without American support. But “long” is a relative term — it could be a year, or it could be two. The problem is that Trump does not have much time; he needs peace in Europe here and now in order to fully focus on China. It can be assumed that, having failed to secure Kyiv’s and Europe’s agreement to concede the Donbass, Trump is forced to change tactics — namely, to harden his stance toward Russia. In short, in this conflict, he has no clear preference; he is pressuring both sides to bring an end to the fighting.

Having failed to obtain his main leverage — the conditional alliance with Russia — Trump approaches his meeting with Xi Jinping with a lesser card: an ultimatum in the form of sanctions targeting buyers of oil from Russia’s two major companies. Observers note that, while the Russian budget will suffer some losses from these sanctions, circumventing them will not be overly difficult.

This means it is still too early to speak of a conclusion to the Russia–Ukraine war, and the U.S.–China confrontation is likely to intensify.