Two days after the initialing of the peace agreement by the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia in Washington on August 8, 2025, six months will have passed.
Modern.az has analyzed the events that transpired during the 6 months since the initialing of the peace text on August 8 and what both countries gained.
The initialing of the August 8 peace agreement is not merely a diplomatic event, but the beginning of a change in the model of political behavior in the region
In the 6 months following the initialing, rational approaches have come to the forefront in Azerbaijan–Armenia relations, rather than emotional rhetoric. The intensity of direct and indirect contacts between the parties has increased. After President Ilham Aliyev declared on October 21 last year during a visit to Kazakhstan that Azerbaijan had removed all restrictions on cargo transit to Armenia that had existed since the occupation, Russian wheat was delivered to Armenia via Azerbaijan on November 5. Furthermore, trains carrying Kazakh wheat reached Armenia on November 8, passing through Azerbaijani territory. Transit continues to this day. Meetings of working groups between Azerbaijan and Armenia have also intensified and become more productive. Thus, based on the agreement reached at the meeting between Azerbaijan's Deputy Prime Minister Shahin Mustafayev and Armenia's Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan in Gabala city on November 28, the first delivery of locally sourced oil cargo to Armenia was carried out by the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (SOCAR) on December 19.
1220 tons of AI-95 brand automotive fuel, loaded onto 22 wagons, were dispatched from Böyük Kəsik station by an ADY freight train. The cargo was delivered to Armenia from there via Georgia.
Concurrently, the Armenian side also began to take certain steps. As an example of this step, one can primarily point to the position demonstrated regarding the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP). Pashinyan openly or indirectly conveyed to society that Armenia's exit from regional blockade, its economic development, and its relations with the West are not possible without peace with Azerbaijan. In short, the Armenian Prime Minister, through his speeches, indicates to society that a peace agreement is inevitable. This can be assessed as the beginning of a psychological shift. Generally, the official steps taken by both sides indicate that they are trying to minimize confrontational rhetoric.
Dividends for Azerbaijan
Over the past 6 months, Azerbaijan has asserted itself as the party leading the process and setting the terms. Official Baku, by building the peace agenda on the principles of security, sovereignty, and territorial integrity, has sent a clear message to the international community that peace is only possible based on the recognition of post-conflict realities. At the same time, the initialing has created a favorable diplomatic position for Azerbaijan in its political dialogue with Western capitals and strengthened its image as the main guarantor of stability in the region.
Outcomes for Armenia
For Armenia, these 6 months have been marked as a phase of adaptation and internal contradictions. The initialing of the peace agreement did not create a unified political stance in Yerevan; on the contrary, it further exposed disagreements between the government, the opposition, and the diaspora. Nevertheless, official Yerevan has been forced to accept that there is no alternative to exiting regional isolation, and a relative softening has been observed in its rhetoric. At the same time, by reaching an agreement with Azerbaijan, Armenia has relatively extricated itself from isolation and secured grain and oil supplies.
Environment of Trust and Real Dynamics
It is premature to say that deep mutual trust has formed after the initialing. However, the reduction of war rhetoric in the statements and behaviors of the parties, and attempts to avoid risky escalations, are noteworthy. At this stage, the peace process is built more on calculated political behavior than on emotional rapprochement. Following the meeting at the leaders' level, meetings also took place among foreign ministers, deputies, NGOs, and journalists.
In November of last year, within the framework of the 23rd autumn session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly held in Istanbul, members of the Milli Majlis, including the head of Azerbaijan's delegation to the OSCE PA, Qaya Mammadov, and members Azay Guliyev, Parvin Karimzada, and Gulshan Pashayeva, met with the Armenian delegation.
During the discussion, the role of parliaments in confidence-building measures implemented between the two countries was touched upon, and the importance of constructive dialogue among parliamentary members within the framework of international organizations was also emphasized.
On October 22, a meeting of representatives of Azerbaijani and Armenian civil societies was held in Yerevan in a bilateral format. The joint initiative of Azerbaijani and Armenian NGO representatives was also supported by the official structures of both countries. At the round table, Azerbaijan was represented by Farhad Mammadov (Head of the South Caucasus Research Center), Rusif Huseynov (Co-founder and Director of the Topchubashov Center), Ramil Iskandarli (Chairman of the Board of the National NGO Forum), Kamala Mammadova, and Dilara Afandiyeva (Head of the Women's Peace and Security Center of the Azerbaijan Women's Rights Protection Society).
On the Armenian side, Areg Kochinyan, Boris Navasardyan, Naira Sultanian, Narek Minasyan, and Samvel Meliksetyan participated in the discussions.
This initiative, which was the first meeting of Azerbaijani and Armenian civil society representatives in this format, was aimed at promoting the peace agenda in accordance with the spirit of the Joint Declaration adopted in Washington on August 8, 2025.
Within the framework of the visit, the participants also met with Armen Grigoryan, Secretary of the Security Council of the Republic of Armenia.
On November 21-22, 2025, a group of Armenian civil society representatives visited Azerbaijan within the framework of the “Peace Bridge” Initiative. During the visit, the Initiative's representatives from Armenia, Areg Kochinyan, Boris Navasardyan, Naira Sultanyan, Narek Minasyan, and Samvel Meliksetyan, met with their Azerbaijani counterparts Farhad Mammadov, Rusif Huseynov, Kamala Mammadova, Ramil Iskandarli, and Fuad Abdullayev. During the visit, members of the “Peace Bridge” Initiative met with Hikmat Hajiyev, Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan – Head of the Foreign Policy Affairs Department of the Presidential Administration.
During the exchange of views, which took place in a cordial atmosphere, steps taken by Azerbaijan and Armenia towards strengthening the peace agenda after the Washington meeting were discussed.
August 8 Washington Agreement – From the Perspective of Azerbaijani and Armenian Societies
The August 8 initialing strengthened the feeling in Azerbaijani society that “the probability of war is decreasing.” Especially for people living in border regions, this document served as a signal that lowered the level of daily fear. The idea that “we are victorious, but now stability is needed” formed in society. This signifies a gradual decrease in the emotional tension that arose after the victory. The issue also has sociological impacts. Thus, the topic of war began to recede into the background in daily conversations, and attention shifted to restoration, return, social welfare, and economic issues. For the younger generation, peace is now perceived not as an ideological concept, but as a practical necessity.
However, the August 8 agreement created mixed feelings, not relief, in Armenian society. On one side, there is the thought that “the war is finally ending,” and on the other, the trauma of “we were the losing side.” This is classic post-defeat psychology. Deep divisions persist in society: the urban, young, and pragmatic segment supports peace, while the older and more radical segment is dissatisfied. People are beginning to see peace not as an idea, but as an economic way out. That is, peace is not loved, but considered necessary. For ordinary people, the peace agreement in mutual relations means a safe tomorrow, stable work, and a fearless daily life.
From this perspective, Azerbaijani society is experiencing a phase of patient anticipation, while Armenian society is undergoing a phase of forced acceptance. The most important point is that although neither society fully trusts the other, they are openly or silently indicating that they no longer want war. This is the most realistic and healthiest basis for peace.
