In the last three decades, the South Caucasus region has been marked by continuous tension, instability, and military clashes.
Despite the 1994 ceasefire agreement signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia, this regime never achieved full sustainability. In fact, for over 30 years, ceasefire violations were recorded almost daily.
As a result of these violations, losses were regularly incurred, and Azerbaijan suffered martyrs every month in this war into which it was forcibly drawn. This demonstrated how dangerous and unstable the classic concept of a “frozen conflict” is in real practice. In the theory of international relations, such conflicts are assessed as a phase of latent war. That is, although formally there is peace, in reality, war continues.
The 44-day Patriotic War that occurred in 2020 led to fundamental geopolitical changes in the region. Azerbaijan restored its territorial integrity, and a new reality was formed. This war showed that the status quo cannot be sustainable and must change sooner or later. At the same time, this process also revealed that peace is without alternative. Because long-term confrontation creates no opportunities for either economic development or social welfare.
The peace agreement initialed between Azerbaijan and Armenia in the USA in August 2025 can be regarded as the beginning of a new phase. This agreement effectively put an end to the ceasefire violations that had continued for many years. Observations show that almost no ceasefire violations have been recorded since that period. This is a rare example of stability for the region. From the perspective of political analysis, this can be characterized as a “post-conflict stabilization phase”.
In reality, war is not desirable for any nation. Especially for ordinary people, war means only losses, destruction, and tragedies. History shows that it is mainly political elites who gain from wars, while nations lose. From this perspective, peace is a humanitarian necessity.
Currently, new political tensions are observed within Armenia. Parliamentary elections are approaching, and these elections will determine the country's future course. In this context, the re-activation of revanchist forces draws attention.
Particularly, former president Robert Kocharyan's attempts to return to the political scene are evident. Historical facts show that the Kocharyan era for Armenia was marked by military adventurism and economic decline.
From an analytical perspective, these forces are attempting to pursue a classic “revisionist policy”. They intend to return to power through foreign support. The promises made are far from reality and are populist in nature. In fact, these promises threaten Armenian society with new war risks.
The current government, particularly Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, has repeatedly stated that Karabakh is Azerbaijani territory. This is a position consistent with the norms and principles of international law. However, politicians like Kocharyan are unwilling to accept this reality. Their political rhetoric is more emotional and aggressive in nature.
What does this approach promise for Armenian society?
Historical experience shows that such a policy only leads to new losses. Bloodshed, poverty, social crisis, and international isolation are the inevitable consequences of such a policy. From the perspective of statehood, this could create even more serious dangers.
Azerbaijan, on the other hand, has repeatedly stated that it is a proponent of peace. If this were not the case, the military advantage gained in 2020 could have been fully exploited. However, Azerbaijan acted in accordance with international law, shifting the processes to a political plane. This is an example of responsible state behavior.
The purpose of enumerating all these facts is for Armenian society to make the right strategic choice in the upcoming elections. This choice is between war and peace. And unequivocally, this choice will determine the fate of future generations.
Peace means development, cooperation, and stability. War, on the other hand, means regression, destruction, and human tragedies. This is a simple and clear choice.
Azerbaijan maintains its position and does not desire war. However, it does not back down from its principled stance on security matters. Should a new threat emerge in the region, Azerbaijan has the right to protect its interests.
The South Caucasus is entering a new historical phase. The main question in this phase is: confrontation or cooperation? The answer to this question depends not only on politicians but also on the choice of nations. A stable and prosperous future can only be built on peace.
Today, the main issue at hand is determined by rational choices, far removed from emotional slogans.
If Armenian mothers do not want their children to become victims of new wars, they must vote for peace. Because war, first and foremost, means mothers' tears and family tragedies.
If the Armenian people do not want to risk the future of their state, they must choose the path of peace. Existence on the world political map is preserved only through stability and correct strategic choices.
If the Armenian political elite considers its future, it must abandon adventurist and revanchist policies. History has proven that wrong decisions come at a great cost to nations.
Today, Armenian society stands before such a historical choice. Either the path of peace, cooperation, and development, or renewed confrontation and decline. There is no other alternative, and this is already a political reality.
Azerbaijan openly declares its commitment to peace. At the same time, it is firmly committed to its territorial integrity and sovereignty. This is one of the fundamental principles of international law and is unchangeable. Azerbaijan's position is clear and based on a long-term strategic line.
Armenian society must also correctly assess external influences. Historical experience shows that Russia has never provided real prosperity and security for Armenia. On the contrary, it has used Armenia as a geopolitical tool for many years. Today, attempts to repeat the same scenario are observed. The re-emergence of figures like Kocharyan occurs precisely in this context. His policy leads Armenia not to development, but to new confrontations. This promises no prospects for either statehood or the people.
If Armenians choose this path again, the consequences will not be different from the 44-day Patriotic War. The new realities established in the region are already irreversible. Failure to accept these realities could lead to even more severe consequences. The liberation of the historical Azerbaijani city of Iravan should be brought to mind.
The choice is clear, and the responsibility falls directly on Armenian society. Choosing peace means choosing the future, while choosing war means uncertainty and losses.
The final decision rests with the Armenian people.
Elnur AMIROV
