The recent publication by Armenia of its negotiation documents on the Karabakh issue has once again drawn attention to the complex, multi-layered diplomatic process that, over decades, shaped the foundation for the events of 2020–2023. Although these materials appear to belong to recent history, their relevance remains undeniable today, especially as Azerbaijan marks the fifth anniversary of the complete withdrawal of Armenian forces on 1 December 2020.
One of the most discussed elements of the released documents was the reference to a “territorial exchange” — Karabakh in return for Western Zangezur and Meghri. Such notions, first floated in the early 1990s, were never genuine political proposals but rather diplomatic instruments. Azerbaijan’s National Leader Heydar Aliyev, an exceptionally skilled statesman, used such theses as a means of probing the Armenian side, identifying the real limits of Yerevan’s flexibility, understanding its intentions, and widening the room for manoeuvre. These methods helped remove representatives of the Khankendi-based separatist entity from the negotiation framework and brought the issue of Nakhchivan to the fore — a question that would later evolve into the broader debate around the Zangezur route.
Throughout this period, Azerbaijan consistently relied on its international legal foundation — internationally recognized borders and UN Security Council resolutions demanding the unconditional withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied territories. This legal basis did not correspond to the logic of the OSCE Minsk Group’s proposals, but it allowed Baku to remain within the negotiation process, avoid political risks, and at the same time create the conditions necessary for future military and diplomatic solutions. Diplomacy in those years was anything but linear: it involved probing, signalling, and intricate combinations whose significance would only become apparent later.
By the time the 2020 Patriotic War began, this diplomatic architecture had evolved into a clear strategic position. From the outset, Baku declared it was ready to halt military operations immediately if Armenia provided a concrete, verifiable timetable for troop withdrawal. Yerevan ignored this demand, simulating readiness for compromise while tying it to its own expectations. Only after the liberation of Shusha, when Armenian forces in Karabakh were trapped in a deadly encirclement, did Armenia finally agree to such a timetable, which culminated in the signing of the Trilateral Statement.
The document was finalized during the night of 10 November 2020. President Ilham Aliyev and President Vladimir Putin signed it publicly, whereas Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan opted to do so secretly. Under the agreement, and simultaneously with the deployment of Russian peacekeepers, the Armenian army withdrew from the districts of Aghdam, Kalbajar, and part of Lachin. A portion of the former NKAO and the so-called “Lachin corridor” remained under peacekeeper oversight. It was at this moment that the importance of prior diplomatic groundwork became fully evident: regaining such difficult districts as Kalbajar and Aghdam without a single shot saved countless lives. A military operation in Kalbajar — given its topography, encirclement, and limited access routes — would have required immense effort and very likely heavy casualties. Recovering this region through political means stands among Azerbaijan’s most significant strategic achievements.
Meanwhile, Armenia violated key provisions of the agreement by maintaining a large military contingent — around 15,000 personnel, tanks, artillery systems, and electronic warfare units — within the “enclave.” The peacekeeping mission failed to exercise proper control over the Lachin corridor, through which weapons, landmines, conscripts, and even a French presidential candidate were transported. Another crucial element of the agreement — the opening of the Zangezur route — never materialized. This perpetuated tension, particularly along the Kalbajar segment of the border, where Armenian forces continued provocations until 2023, banking on logistical difficulties on the Azerbaijani side and on the peacekeepers’ inertia. These calculations ultimately proved false.
All the alarmist predictions that spread across social media immediately after the signing — claims that Azerbaijan’s victory had been “stolen,” that this was a “new 28 April,” that peacekeepers “would never leave,” that the conflict was “frozen for 30 years” — collapsed upon contact with reality. The peacekeepers’ mandate was fixed at five years, and any extension depended solely on Baku. The years that followed demonstrated how carefully calibrated Azerbaijan’s position had been.
In the ensuing period, Azerbaijan undertook a series of successful steps that steadily reshaped the post-war landscape. Attempts to expand the peacekeepers’ zone of control were prevented. In 2022, Azerbaijan regained Lachin, Sus, and Zabukh without a single shot fired, fundamentally changing the situation on the ground. In 2023, a border and customs checkpoint was established on the Lachin road, restoring full control over this critical artery. In September of the same year, Azerbaijani forces conducted rapid anti-terror operations, dismantling the separatist regime in Khankendi and restoring the country’s sovereignty over its entire internationally recognized territory. Russian peacekeepers subsequently departed ahead of the planned expiration of their mandate — the logical conclusion of Baku’s consistent policy.
These developments brought to completion a trajectory that began in the 1990s, when the foundations of Azerbaijan’s diplomatic strategy and legal arguments were first laid, and continued through the military operations of 2020 and the historic Trilateral Statement. The restoration of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and state sovereignty was not the result of a single fortunate moment but the outcome of a sophisticated synthesis of diplomacy, political resolve, international law, and precise military decisions.
This is how grandmaster-level diplomacy operates: it connects past manoeuvres, present realities, and long-term objectives into a unified strategic architecture, producing outcomes that only become fully apparent with the passage of time.
