Skepticism of Azerbaijani experts about yesterday's meeting in Brussels

In the aftermath of yesterday's high-stakes meeting in Brussels, skepticism looms large among Azerbaijani non-governmental experts regarding the purported outcomes and implications of the diplomatic tête-à-tête. The rendezvous, which saw Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan engage with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, has stirred a flurry of conjecture and analysis, with President Ilham Aliyev branding it as a potential threat to Azerbaijan's interests.

At the heart of the skepticism lies the conspicuous absence of the Karabakh issue from the public discourse surrounding the meeting. Despite promises of assistance to Armenia, including the provision of non-lethal weapons and substantial financial aid exceeding $300 million, Azerbaijani analysts remain wary of what they perceive as a strategic omission. Elkhan Shainoglu, Director of the Atlas analytical center, contends that the silence on Karabakh masks an orchestrated effort to bolster Armenia's position under Western tutelage, with potential ramifications for Azerbaijan's regional interests.

"The main outcome of the negotiations is the transition of Armenia under the tutelage of the West," Shainoglu asserts, highlighting concerns over Armenia's perceived alignment with Western powers to the detriment of regional stability. Moreover, the pledge of financial assistance is dismissed as inconsequential, with doubts cast on its efficacy in mitigating Armenia's economic vulnerabilities, particularly in light of potential retaliatory measures by Russia, a key player in the region.

Farhad Mammadov, head of the South Caucasus Research Center, echoes Shainoglu's reservations, suggesting that the full extent of the Brussels summit's implications is yet to unfold. Despite acknowledging the absence of overtly anti-Azerbaijani rhetoric, Mammadov underscores the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the meeting's nuances, cautioning against premature conclusions.

Conversely, MP Rasim Musabekov anticipates challenges for Armenia in its bid to reshape regional dynamics without the participation of key stakeholders such as Turkey and Azerbaijan. Emphasizing the indispensability of Turkish and Azerbaijani involvement in any Caucasus-centric initiatives, Musabekov warns of potential repercussions for Armenia, particularly vis-à-vis its relations with Russia.

As the dust settles on the Brussels summit, uncertainties persist, with Azerbaijani experts grappling with the broader implications of Armenia's overtures to Western powers and the evolving geopolitics of the Caucasus.  Amidst competing narratives and geopolitical maneuvering, the ramifications of yesterday's meeting reverberate across the region, shaping the contours of future diplomatic engagements and strategic alignments.