Beniamin Matevosyan: Aliyev’s Yerevan speech was about war

(Pashinyan is giving up Ararat, while Aliyev lays claim to “Irevan”?)

The Yerevan summit of the European Political Community served as a stage for one of Ilham Aliyev’s most sophisticated political performances in recent years. His speech, formally wrapped in the rhetoric of regional cooperation, turned out in practice to be a manifesto of contempt for international institutions and an effective rejection of the peace process with Armenia, including in its humanitarian and legal dimensions.

The paradox of the situation was that, while speaking of peace, Baku was broadcasting an agenda of aggression that leaves no room for compromise, offering only conditions of capitulation dressed up as “new realities.” The complete ignoring of the humanitarian crisis became the central element of this strategy. The Azerbaijani side continues to hold Armenian prisoners of war and the military-political leadership of Artsakh, stubbornly referring to them as “separatists” and “war criminals.” This is not merely legal terminology, it is a clear signal that Azerbaijan has no intention of taking steps forward on issues that are vital to rebuilding even minimal trust. Moreover, sooner or later Baku will raise the question of who provided assistance to these “separatists” and in what form, which will open a new chapter of confrontation and conflict with Yerevan.

The refusal to address humanitarian issues, set against the backdrop of lofty speeches about “nine months of peace,” looks like a brazen mockery of the very essence of the peace process. At the same time, the systematic destruction of Armenian historical and cultural heritage continues in the occupied territories of Artsakh, evidence of a drive not merely to control the land, but to permanently erase any trace of Armenian presence, stripping future generations even of their memory of it.

Particular attention is warranted by Aliyev’s attack on European institutions, the European Parliament and PACE, which was unprecedented in its harshness. Direct accusations of “lies, slander, and double standards” directed at bodies that have adopted 14 resolutions against Baku demonstrate that the Azerbaijani regime no longer regards the EU as a constraining factor.

The economic dimension of Aliyev’s speech, in particular the mention of fuel supplies to Armenia and the mythical “Trump route” to Nakhchivan, looks like an attempt to substitute trade dependency for political settlement. By citing transit cargo figures and gasoline volumes, Baku tries to create an illusion of normalization, ignoring the fact that real peace is not built at gas stations while prison doors remain locked. The cynicism of the situation is further underscored by the fact that, while Aliyev speaks of the “practical fruits of peace,” official Azerbaijani resources continue to refer to Yerevan as “Irevan,” advancing the concept of so-called “Western Azerbaijan.” This is a direct encroachment on a neighbor’s sovereignty that renders any talk of recognizing Armenia’s territorial integrity meaningless.

The “Heydar Aliyev” military exercises held on the eve of the summit only confirm that Baku’s “peace agenda” is always backed by a loaded weapon. Azerbaijan sees no need for genuine reconciliation with Armenia, preferring tactics of attrition, cultural ethnocide, and diplomatic blackmail, all while hiding behind the mask of a constructive partner. This state of affairs calls into question the very possibility of long-term stability in the region, as long as the international community limits itself to expressing “deep concern” in response to open aggression and manipulation.

Think about that…