Political practice demonstrates that weak positions often generate institutional instability, whereas strength and a results-oriented approach contribute to the establishment of order and predictability. When issues of critical importance for an entire region are under discussion, consistency and a willingness to engage in constructive dialogue become paramount.
At present, Armenia’s diplomatic strategy reveals a pattern of inconsistency and insufficient commitment to advancing a comprehensive peace agreement. Despite public declarations affirming a commitment to peace, practical actions suggest deliberate delays and deviations from previously coordinated frameworks. The conduct of Armenian representatives in international forums often reflects a lack of coherent direction, which hinders progress toward a sustainable resolution.
Against the backdrop of ongoing uncertainty regarding the future of peace in the South Caucasus—as well as continued border incidents involving violations of the ceasefire regime—Armenia has focused its attention on contesting certain provisions of the draft agreement that had ostensibly passed prior stages of coordination. These actions may be interpreted as efforts to stall or obstruct the process, increasing the risk of new and potentially destabilizing developments in the region.
Another key feature of the current situation is the involvement of external actors who, while rhetorically supporting the peace process, in practice assist Armenia in reinterpreting or revisiting previously achieved understandings. This dynamic was evident during recent Armenian-Swiss political consultations in Bern, where discussions centered around issues of limited practical relevance to the core negotiations. The absence of tangible outcomes and the prevalence of declarative rhetoric underscore the limited effectiveness of the consultations.
The initial proposal for bilateral dialogue appeared to hold constructive potential. However, its actual implementation revealed that the participants largely concentrated on topics unrelated to the resolution of the fundamental challenges. Despite the limited progress, participants refrained from acknowledging the ineffectiveness of the exchange.
An analysis of the events suggests that the Armenian delegation—led by Director of the European Department of Armenia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Samvel Mkrtchyan—and the Swiss side—represented by Muriel Peneveyre, Head of the Eurasian Division of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA)—likely anticipated the symbolic nature of the engagement and its limited practical impact. Nevertheless, the achievement of meaningful progress still hinges on a mutually agreed position between Baku and Yerevan. Although the prerequisites for success are apparent, Armenia continues to introduce additional conditions, complicating the negotiation process.
The recurrence of stagnating negotiations without practical advancement seems to remain acceptable for both the Armenian side and certain international actors. Historically, such patterns have led to a diversion of attention away from the core objectives, particularly when third parties are involved.
From the perspective of political analysis, the effectiveness of negotiations depends on the presence of clearly defined opportunities and the mechanisms for their realization. When such conditions exist, excessive expansion of the negotiation format may not only fail to facilitate progress but can also contribute to its delay.
If Yerevan seeks to demonstrate its commitment to peace on the international stage, this could be achieved through public diplomacy and awareness initiatives. However, participation in discussions with limited substantive focus and the involvement of additional experts merely complicates the structure of the negotiation process, increasing the number of stakeholders and reducing overall efficiency.
It appears that Armenian diplomacy has adopted a strategy of nullifying previously achieved results, finding strategic comfort in frequently resetting the configuration of an already established negotiation framework. Attempts to involve third parties not only fail to add value to the process but introduce unnecessary complexity and additional variables.
Although some observers expressed cautious optimism following the consultations in Bern—and Armenian representatives welcomed a European parliamentary initiative as a constructive gesture toward comprehensive peace—the content and outcome of the consultations suggest the use of pre-designed templates shaped in coordination with Yerevan.
Traditionally, Swiss diplomacy has been marked by neutrality and a cautious, self-reliant approach. In this case, however, there was a departure from that model, with a limited degree of effectiveness observed. The Swiss side encountered difficulty navigating between the strict requirements of international law, as emphasized by official Baku, and the emotional appeals advanced by the Armenian side. This challenge complicated Bern’s ability to maintain a balanced mediation posture.
Meanwhile, Armenia continues to engage in initiatives that impede the peace process, demonstrating an increasing level of inconsistency. Support for parliamentary resolutions and declarations that lack practical constructiveness fails to contribute positively to regional stability.
The inefficient use of diplomatic resources and time has further increased Yerevan’s negotiating liabilities. In this context, Armenian diplomacy reveals institutional limitations—particularly in contrast to the growing regional and international capabilities of Azerbaijan.
