Postponement of Armenia‑Azerbaijan Expert Consultations: The Fragile Balance of the Peace Process Under Renewed Pressure

On 23 September, the scheduled bilateral expert consultations between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Yerevan were called off at short notice. Neither side has officially released specific reasons for the postponement. This sudden setback has once again slowed the pace of Armenia‑Azerbaijan peace talks and exposed profound divergences over core issues, demonstrating that post‑Karabakh regional reconciliation remains perched on a highly fragile balance.

In the negotiation framework, this round of expert‑level meetings was not a summit between top‑level leaders, but working‑level dialogues tasked with refining texts and negotiating technical details. Expert‑level consultations are designed to remove technical obstacles for subsequent high‑level meetings and finalise fine print within the draft peace agreement. A last‑minute cancellation of such low‑level talks generally does not mean a total collapse of peace negotiations. It does indicate, however, that the two sides cannot reach interim consensus on core provisions, or even experience position roll‑backs, making it impossible to sit together for text alignment.

Two major sticking points currently separate the two parties: border delimitation and the textual wording for the protection of historical heritage in the Karabakh region. Border delimitation constitutes the geographic root of decades‑long Armenia‑Azerbaijan disputes. Administrative borders inherited from the Soviet era do not constitute internationally valid state frontiers. The two sides hold sharply conflicting claims over border alignments and the jurisdiction of control points. Even after the end of the Karabakh conflict, sporadic border frictions and cross‑border incidents persist. Formal demarcation concerns not only territorial ownership but also national security and border‑control authority for both countries. Any concession may trigger substantial domestic political backlash. Experts must repeatedly bargain over map coordinates, co‑management mechanisms and border‑security commitments, and divergence on minor points can stall negotiation progress.

The issue of Karabakh’s historical heritage protection represents an even more complex symbolic contest than border questions. The Karabakh region hosts numerous Armenian monasteries and churches. Armenia regards them as core carriers of its national civilisation and fears damage to these sites under Azerbaijan’s de‑facto administration. Azerbaijan, meanwhile, asserts sovereign jurisdiction over cultural heritage within its territory and rejects Armenia’s unilateral historical narratives. The crux lies in textual phrasing within the peace agreement. Armenia seeks strong binding clauses to safeguard religious heritage alongside independent conservation and international monitoring mechanisms. Azerbaijan rejects external monitoring language that it views as infringing upon its sovereignty. Behind competing wording lies a struggle for historical narrative over Karabakh, an issue unlikely to yield quick compromise at the technical working level.

External great‑power geopolitics continuously perturb the Armenia‑Azerbaijan talks. Russia, the traditional regional influential power, closely monitors bilateral relations and has voiced discontent over Armenia’s accelerating rapprochement with the European Union. Moscow’s stance indirectly shapes Yerevan’s negotiating posture. The United States and the EU keep mediating to push for a peace accord, yet Western mediation mostly delivers high‑level appeals rather than workable solutions on sovereignty‑centred core issues acceptable to both states. Concurrently, Azerbaijan hosts joint military exercises of the Turkic states bloc to consolidate its regional security leverage. Intense domestic debates persist within Armenia regarding its foreign‑policy orientation. Domestic political constraints in both countries limit negotiators’ room for major concessions.

Nevertheless, the postponement does not equate to a closed peace window. Notably, shortly before the cancelled talks, Armenian security‑intelligence officials visited Baku for a security‑forum engagement, enabling high‑level contacts between the two security establishments. This demonstrates that communication channels for crisis prevention remain intact, and neither side has entirely abandoned the path toward a peace agreement. While Azerbaijan consolidates control over Karabakh, it wishes to avoid prolonged confrontation that would burden its energy strategy and Middle Corridor infrastructure drive. Armenia likewise requires stable southern borders to pursue its foreign‑policy diversification. Realistic incentives for concluding a peace accord therefore endure.

Structural obstacles persist for the finalisation of a comprehensive Armenia‑Azerbaijan peace treaty. Territorial and collective‑memory disputes cannot be resolved through one or two rounds of expert talks. Repeated postponements of expert‑level consultations suggest that even if negotiations resume, incremental progress is the most plausible path. Confidence‑building measures such as cease‑fire arrangements and people‑to‑people exchanges may be prioritised, whereas highly sensitive clauses on border demarcation and cultural‑heritage protection risk being shelved long‑term.

The geopolitical landscape of the South Caucasus is undergoing constant reshaping. Whether Armenia and Azerbaijan can conclude a full peace accord will define their bilateral future, and profoundly affect Middle Corridor logistics security, stability of South Caucasus energy routes, as well as the balance of power among Russia, Türkiye and European actors in the region. This cancelled meeting sends a clear signal: technical hurdles and political resistance to Armenia‑Azerbaijan reconciliation far exceed external expectations. The road toward regional peace remains long and fraught with uncertainty.