Despite the many positive expectations following the end of the Cold War, the period brought new challenges and threats to international security. Indeed, the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia led to the emergence of new conflict zones in Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus, and other regions, demonstrating that, despite the end of bipolar confrontation, genuine peace remained elusive.
Concurrently, the outbreak of war between the newly independent Armenia and Azerbaijan posed a serious threat to the security architecture of the strategically significant Caucasus region. As a result of the war, 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s territory was occupied by Armenia, and more than 700,000 Azerbaijani citizens were displaced from their homes.
Nonetheless, the geopolitical landscape of the region has undergone significant changes since that period. During the years of occupation, Azerbaijan strengthened both economically and militarily and secured the support of the international community. Through the Second Karabakh War in 2020 and the anti-terror operation of 2023, Azerbaijan restored its territorial integrity and sovereignty, effectively ending the policy of occupation and separatism in the region. As a result, Azerbaijan has established new geopolitical realities that provide a solid foundation for sustainable peace in the South Caucasus.
After long being referred to as a “powder keg” due to protracted conflicts and interethnic animosities, the South Caucasus has now developed tangible conditions for peace. Immediately following the war, Azerbaijan extended a hand of reconciliation to Armenia by proposing a five-point peace agenda, thereby laying the foundation for the bilateral peace process. A key milestone in advancing this process was the signing of a joint peace declaration in Washington on August 8, 2025, facilitated by U.S. President Donald Trump. The declaration addressed several critical issues, including the consolidation of peace between the two countries, the initialing of a formal peace treaty, the reopening of communication lines, and the dissolution of the long-standing but ineffective OSCE Minsk Group, which had been charged with resolving the conflict for decades.
One of the most significant elements of the declaration is the agreement to open the Zangezur Corridor, which would connect mainland Azerbaijan with its exclave Nakhchivan through southern Armenia. This represents a major step toward a new chapter in Azerbaijan–Armenia relations and contributes directly to the establishment of sustainable peace in the South Caucasus. According to the theory of commercial peace, the likelihood of conflict between states decreases when they maintain active trade relations. The post-World War II experience of France and Germany provides a clear illustration: cooperation over the strategically vital Ruhr region, along with the creation of the Coal and Steel Community and other agreements, laid the foundations for enduring peace.
Similarly, trade and economic relations can be expected to play a crucial role in promoting peace in the South Caucasus region. For commerce to flourish, however, communication and transportation links must be opened. In this context, the Zangezur Corridor functions as Azerbaijan’s “Ruhr region,” with the potential to unlock the full economic capacity of the region and promote cooperation, development and stability. In Washington, the parties reached an agreement on opening the corridor and on the participation of an American company in its construction and security arrangements. Nonetheless, the specific details and construction timeline have not yet been finalized. Accordingly, the creation of working groups to discuss these issues and agree on a detailed schedule is essential. In this regard, the U.S. State Department’s announcement on establishing such working groups with both Azerbaijan and Armenia represents a positive step toward the implementation of the TRIPP initiative.
Another significant development in transportation concerns the recent announcement by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. During his visit to Kazakhstan, he stated that Azerbaijan had authorized the transit of grain through its territory to Armenia. Given that no goods had been transported between the two countries since the occupation of Azerbaijani territories, this move represents an important milestone in the consolidation of trust between the parties. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan welcomed the decision and indicated that Armenia is also prepared to facilitate transit between Türkiye and Azerbaijan through its territory.
Furthermore, it’s worth noting that, the recent meetings between representatives of Azerbaijani and Armenian civil societies have played an important role in fostering confidence-building measures between the two countries, thereby advancing the path toward peace. Following last week’s meeting in Yerevan, the positive atmosphere reported by participants from both sides suggests that such interactions are likely to become more frequent in the future. It is widely recognized that achieving sustainable peace in the region requires not only official diplomatic engagement but also sustained dialogue among civil society actors, academics, and business representatives.
As Hedley Bull, a prominent scholar of the English School of International Relations, notes in The Anarchical Society, the maintenance of peace necessitates cooperation and integration not only among states but also among societies. Shared interests, mutual recognition, and the prospect of cooperation are among the primary factors that bring societies and states closer together.
Despite the positive developments in the Azerbaijan-Armenia peace process, certain obstacles remain. These can be categorized as internal and external challenges. Internally, key obstacles include Armenia’s constitution, which contains territorial claims against Azerbaijan in its preamble, as well as revanchist factions, including radical elements within the Armenian diaspora that oppose the peace process. At present, these groups are attempting, by all means, to prevent Prime Minister Pashinyan from securing victory in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Should they gain power, their influence could have a detrimental impact on the peace process between the two countries.
On the other hand, countries such as Russia and Iran, which are unwilling to accept any reduction in their geopolitical influence in the South Caucasus, have approached the opening of any corridor involving U.S. participation with skepticism. Since the Cold War, Moscow has regarded the United States as one of its primary geopolitical rivals in the region. Although Russia has not openly criticized the Washington declaration in official statements, it has sought to remind the region of the necessity of Russian involvement.
Statements from Iran regarding the corridor reveal divisions within its political and military elite: while the president has taken a more moderate and pragmatic stance, representatives of the military wing and certain members of parliament have issued negative statements concerning the corridor. Azerbaijan, in turn, has communicated through diplomatic channels to both parties that the corridor is not directed against any country, emphasizing that Baku’s intention is to promote sustainable peace in the region based on cooperation, development, and security.
The Azerbaijani government has also highlighted that the corridor can serve the economic and transport interests of all regional participants and has the potential to connect the east–west transport route with the north–south corridor, a perspective it has presented to regional and international actors. Nevertheless, the future of the corridor and the broader achievement of peace and stability in the South Caucasus depends on developments within Armenia as well as the interplay of interests among regional and external powers.
Although the long-standing conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia is now behind, achieving sustainable peace will require navigating a challenging and complex path. Successfully traversing this path necessitates the establishment of confidence-building measures between the parties, the continuation of both formal and informal contacts, the removal of remnants of the past conflict, the opening of communication lines, and the development of commercial and economic relations.
For a final peace treaty to be concluded, Armenia must amend its constitution to eliminate territorial claims against Azerbaijan. However, the signing of a peace treaty alone does not guarantee sustainable peace. The renowned Norwegian scholar Johan Galtung, in his study “What is Peace Research?”, distinguishes between negative and positive peace. Negative peace refers to the absence of violence and war, whereas positive peace entails the absence of structural and cultural violence. Galtung argues that negative peace is insufficient for achieving lasting stability; instead, the peace process must be directed toward positive peace through confidence-building mechanisms, cooperation, and integration among societies. Accordingly, Azerbaijan’s approach goes beyond the mere signing of a peace agreement, aiming also to foster mutual trust and establish the foundational conditions necessary for sustainable peace in the region.
Sultan Zahidov is a leading consultant at the Baku-based Center of Analysis of International Relations. (AIR Center). At the same time, he works as a senior instructor in international relations at Baku State University.
