The peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan has entered a stage in which the main contours of a possible settlement are largely identifiable. Despite this, the transition to a final agreement remains incomplete. The post-2020 geopolitical environment significantly altered regional dynamics: Azerbaijan re-established full sovereignty, Russia’s influence declined, and Western actors enhanced their involvement.
Even with these shifts, negotiations continue to demonstrate structural fragility. This fragility stems from both geopolitical competition and internal political limitations, which jointly prevent consolidation of the diplomatic track.
A defining feature of the current phase is the fragmentation of external mediation. The United States, the European Union, Russia and Iran have advanced overlapping initiatives that often compete for primacy. These formats reflect differing strategic priorities and create parallel, sometimes contradictory, diplomatic channels.
Such competition complicates decision-making for both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Instead of reinforcing each other, external tracks generate inconsistent expectations and reduce the predictability of the negotiation space. As a result, the process lacks a unified framework capable of sustaining long-term commitments.
Domestic political dynamics further constrain progress, particularly on the Armenian side. Although the government periodically signals readiness to adjust constitutional language and align its positions with internationally accepted principles, these steps face strong resistance. Opposition groups frame concessions as unacceptable, triggering recurrent cycles of public mobilisation.
This atmosphere significantly narrows the political room for manoeuvre. Even limited compromises produce high domestic costs, weakening the government’s ability to negotiate. The influence of diaspora organisations amplifies these pressures by promoting maximalist narratives and supporting hardline policy positions in external legislatures.
Taken together, these factors limit Armenia’s acceptance space. They create a structural environment in which the translation of diplomatic agreements into internal consensus becomes difficult. This domestic volatility stands in contrast to Azerbaijan’s more stable political context, which provides Baku with greater continuity in its external policy.
Despite these challenges, several recent developments indicate progress. Direct communication channels between the two states have become more frequent and less dependent on third-party mediation. This shift reduces vulnerability to external competition and builds a more consistent bilateral framework.
Technical steps — including initial demarcation efforts, discussions on connectivity, and the dismantling of outdated international mechanisms — further contribute to a more predictable environment. These measures create a basis on which more formal arrangements can eventually be built.
Yet long-term stability will require conditions that go beyond formal negotiations. A more coherent international environment is necessary to prevent competing mediation structures from re-emerging. Likewise, internal political stabilisation in Armenia is essential to ensure that commitments made at the interstate level can be anchored domestically.
Societal mistrust remains another latent but influential factor. Although less visible than political barriers, it continues to shape public perceptions and provides opportunities for internal and external actors to obstruct progress when advantageous.
In its present form, the peace process reflects a layered interaction of geopolitical shifts, domestic constraints and historical legacies. These constraints do not eliminate the possibility of a durable settlement, but they reduce the likelihood of rapid breakthroughs.
Should external competition diminish and domestic legitimacy strengthen, the probability of a viable, sustainable Armenia–Azerbaijan agreement increases substantially. Under such conditions, a more stable regional order in the South Caucasus becomes a realistic strategic outcome.
