On 2 December, the European Union and Armenia signed a 64-page document titled the “EU–Armenia Strategic Agenda for Partnership,” intended to outline the framework of future cooperation. Yet despite its declared aims — deepening economic ties, supporting reforms, and advancing political coordination — the content raises serious concerns regarding its objectivity, legal accuracy, and potential impact on the regional peace process. Instead of offering a balanced roadmap, the document sets political accents that risk undermining the delicate equilibrium established following the events of 2020–2023.
Already in the opening pages, the document claims that Armenians “were forced to leave” Karabakh. This wording does not reflect the factual circumstances: the departure occurred voluntarily and was encouraged by the leaders of the illegal regime in Khankendi, as well as by entities financed by the Armenian state. The use of emotionally charged language constructs an artificial humanitarian crisis, frames the situation in politicized terms, and shifts responsibility away from the actors who initiated the exodus. It also creates a biased backdrop for assessing Azerbaijan’s lawful actions to restore constitutional order. Such an approach violates the principles of impartiality and contradicts the basic norms of diplomatic communication, which require respect for partners and accuracy in assessments. Azerbaijan’s position remains clear: no international body may employ accusatory rhetoric or impose interpretations unsupported by facts and international law.
One of the most troubling elements is the reference to integrating into European educational programs an Armenian school named after Monte Melkonian — a figure directly associated with grave crimes against civilians. Such legitimization contradicts the EU’s own values and raises questions about the seriousness of its commitment to security principles. Equally problematic is the use of the term “Nagorno-Karabakh,” which no longer exists as a legal or administrative entity. Its presence in the text is not an oversight: it sends an unmistakable political signal and casts doubt on the EU’s recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. This creates an internal contradiction within the document itself, which simultaneously calls for respect for the sovereignty of regional states.
The humanitarian section is similarly one-sided, built almost entirely around the Armenian narrative. There is no reference to the security threats Azerbaijan faced due to Armenia’s prolonged deployment of armed formations on its territory, nor any analysis of the factors that necessitated the counter-terrorism measures. There is likewise no mention of the more than 300,000 Azerbaijanis deported from Armenia — even as the EU emphasizes support for Armenians who voluntarily relocated from Karabakh. This selective approach raises doubts about the document’s neutrality and suggests a humanitarian framework applied inconsistently.
Legal ambiguities deepen these concerns. The document calls for the “immediate and effective implementation of International Court of Justice decisions” without specifying which rulings are meant. Such vagueness opens the door to political manipulation and can be used to exert pressure on one party, thereby complicating negotiations and pulling the process away from a strictly legal basis.
Taken together, these elements form a document that, despite its official objectives, does not strengthen trust between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Instead, it introduces new sources of tension. The stakes are even higher considering the progress achieved on 8 August in Washington, under the mediation of U.S. President Donald Trump, when the sides initialled a peace agreement and agreed to open regional communications. These developments created a real opportunity for lasting stability in the South Caucasus. Yet the EU–Armenia document risks obscuring this positive momentum and injecting a competing political agenda into the peace process — a development that could erode mutual confidence.
In the end, the strategic agenda intended to promote cooperation becomes a text containing politically sensitive and conceptually disputable provisions. It creates risks for the peace process, reinforces unilateral interpretations, relies on ambiguous legal language, and overlooks Azerbaijan’s fundamental concerns. For the document to contribute to regional stability, the EU must demonstrate consistency, respect for international law, and the ability to conduct an objective assessment. Otherwise, it will be seen not as a tool for peace, but as a factor complicating its achievement.
