Is the West preparing Armenia for war?

Against the backdrop of ongoing geopolitical tensions and lingering disputes, the meeting between the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia in Berlin marks a critical juncture in the quest for regional stability. Yet, amidst speculation and diplomatic maneuvers, skepticism looms over the prospects of substantive progress.

The rendezvous between Ceyhun Bayramov and Ararat Mirzoyan, the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia respectively, has sparked intense scrutiny, particularly in light of recent developments and divergent narratives surrounding the peace process.

Against the background of a flurry of speculation circulating in the Azerbaijani media, former diplomat Nahid Jafarov offers a sober assessment of the prevailing dynamics in the program "Difficult Question". Jafarov suggests that Azerbaijan's engagement in the peace process may be viewed through a lens of caution, driven by concerns over the evolving role of Western actors. While acknowledging Azerbaijan's participation in the Munich plenary session, Jafarov remains circumspect about the potential outcomes of the Berlin meeting, characterizing it as largely ceremonial.

Echoing prevailing sentiments, Jafarov underscores the pivotal role of Russia in the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. He contends that any prospective peace agreement must align with Russia's strategic interests, cautioning against unilateral initiatives that may provoke Russian intervention. Against the backdrop of heightened geopolitical tensions, Jafarov warns of the potential ramifications of sidelining Russia from the peace process, citing increased pressure and diplomatic constraints faced by Azerbaijan.

Central to Jafarov's analysis is the assertion that Russia, while lacking a vested interest in the resolution of the conflict, benefits from its perpetuation. By perpetuating a frozen conflict, Russia maintains leverage over the parties involved, thereby bolstering its regional influence and strategic calculus.

Addressing allegations of ethnic cleansing leveled against Azerbaijan, Jafarov contends that Western stakeholders prioritize peace and stability over attributing blame. He suggests that the West's overarching objective is to prevent the emergence of new conflict zones, underscoring the imperative of a peaceful resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Amidst the complexities and geopolitical maneuvering, the meeting in Berlin represents a symbolic yet consequential step in the arduous journey towards regional reconciliation. As stakeholders navigate the intricacies of diplomacy and power dynamics, the ultimate litmus test lies in their ability to transcend divergent narratives and chart a course towards sustainable peace and stability in the South Caucasus.