The approach of the U.S. to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is based on the principle of the territorial integrity of states

The Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and  eight U.S. senators, almost in unison,  exchanged   political blows due to the latest military conflict on September 12-14 on the undefined Armenian-Azerbaijani border,  which resulted  in the death and injury of about 500 soldiers on both sides.

Aliyev, not unreasonably accusing Armenia of disrupting the three peace agreements initiated by Russia, once again confirmed his decisive position on the final resolution of the conflict, based on three pillars: the signing of a large peace agreement, with mutual recognition of territorial integrity, delimitation and demarcation of borders based on administrative borders republics, at the time of the collapse of the USSR, the two-way opening of communications.

“On September 13,  the Azerbaijani Armed Forces  prevented next provocation, and repulsed the enemy. I hope this finally serves as a lesson to them. No one's call and no statement will stop us... If Armenia is trying to accuse us that we have invaded their territory, then this is without any grounds. Without the delimitation of the border, no one can say where it passes ... Armenia should think carefully. No one can speak to us in the language of an ultimatum, and let no one be counted on. I want to say again that no one and nothing can stop us,” Aliyev said on September 21.

Armenia, violating the agreements reached after the end of the 44-day war in 2020, as a precondition for the fulfillment of all three parameters, raises the issue of the status of Nagorno Karabakh (NK), with the condition of recognizing the mandatory independence of the Armenian-populated region from Azerbaijan.

In connection with the events of September 12-14, eight U.S. senators, including former presidential candidates, sent a letter to Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin. They are wondering if the Biden administration intends to continue cooperation in the field of security with Baku? They also want to know if the U.S. provided any assistance to the security units that were involved in the recent hostilities?

Previously,  the speaker of Congress Nansy Pelosi, visited Yerevan, and directly accused Azerbaijan of attacking Armenia, expressing solidarity to the leadership of Armenia, which has recently been methodically subjected to internal opposition oriented to Moscow. Pelosi claims that her visit was planned in advance and accidentally coincided with the period of military escalation. It is difficult to refute it. However, her frank appeal to the Armenian elite about the need to determine the vector of foreign policy, suggests that in Washington they are closely monitoring the situation and expect a change of foreign policy from Armenia. “The purpose of our visit is to understand what Armenia expects from the United States, and what kind of support we can provide and what we can do in cooperation in the field of defense. The decision is made by Armenia, and we are ready to help if it accepts it.” That is, she wanted to say that she arrived precisely for this, when Armenia received another refusal for help from Moscow, which should move Yerevan to more confident decision-making on geopolitical orientation.

In fact, Pelosi expressed the position of not only the Congress, but also the entire political elite of the United States, just as she showed it, making a trip to Taiwan, when the unity of all the branches of America’s authority regarding China was clearly visible.

In Yerevan, Pelosi made it clear to the Armenian authorities that  the U.S. assistance to protect Armenia can only be within the framework of international law based on territorial integrity. Indirectly, this also indicated that Azerbaijan could count on the same help. "As for our obligations to Armenia, we will continue to maintain the territorial integrity of Armenia and oppose any changes in the boundaries of Armenia," she said.

Thus, the approach to the decision of the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan will be based on the boundaries recognized by the international community at the time of gaining the independence of these two Caucasian states.

The accents of the American establishment regarding the view of the long-term Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict are notable. This is how the “New York Times”, which is describing the visit of Pelosi, formed basic Washington phrases in relation to two countries:

Analysts believe that Azerbaijan took another step in recent hostilities, attacking targets and, for the first time, entering the international recognized boundaries of Armenia ...

Pelosi said that she wanted to convey "decisive and constant support of the United States" to Armenia, but also called for settlement by negotiations ...

The clashes became the largest escalation of the conflict after a truce concluded in 2020 through the mediation of Russia, a long-standing defender of Armenia. Analysts say that Azerbaijan may have been inspired by the recent failures of Russia in Ukraine and, in general, that Russia focused on the war in this country ...

Recently, Azerbaijan pushed Mr. Pashinyan to sign a peace agreement, which would recognize Azerbaijan's sovereignty over the Nagorno-Karabakh, recognized by the international community as part of Azerbaijan, but closely related to Armenia and claiming independence ...

The Armenian government stated that last week it turned to Russia with a request to resolve the situation...

Ms. Pelosi said the recent attack "threatens the prospects for a much needed peace deal" and that there could be no military solution to the conflict...

"The congressional delegation she led was "a powerful symbol of the United States' strong commitment to a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Armenia and a stable and secure Caucasus region," she tweeted ahead of her trip...

A similar article in UPI:

The two former Soviet countries have been involved embroiled in a decade-long conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, which is part of Azerbaijan but has long been controlled by ethnic Armenian forces backed by Armenia since the separatist war there ended in 1994...

During the six-week war in 2020, Azerbaijan regained the vast territories of Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent territories held by Armenian forces. More than 6,700 people died in these battles ...

“The United States ... has stated clearly and long ago that there can be no military solution to the conflict. We continue to closely monitor the situation and continue to support an agreed, comprehensive and sustainable solution to all issues related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict”….

“We regret that Pelosi,  who speaks of justice,  until today, has purposefully not shown any position on Armenia’s policy of aggression against Azerbaijan, the occupation of Azerbaijan’s territory for almost 30 years, the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis and other similar grave crimes,  which Armenia is responsible,”  the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry ... quotes

Conclusion

From all this it follows that the U.S. will promote a policy that would include mutual recognition of the territorial integrity of the conflicting parties, the establishment of peace under the US security umbrella. In principle, the position of Moscow from the beginning of the 44-day war to this day, including non-interference in the conflict on September 12-14, should push Armenia to make decisions on the implementation of the surrender conditions stipulated in the November 9, 2020 statement and publicly supported by the United States and France.