Aliyev Attempts to Maximize Benefits from Current Situation Amid Pashinyan's Weakness, Says Mikayel Minasyan

The November 10 statement can be considered an indisputable achievement for Russia, its leadership, and personally for President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov, whose contributions to reaching this agreement are invaluable. This is stated by Mikayel Minasyan on his Telegram channel.

He specifically wrote: "The trilateral statement has put an end to military operations, yet it must also serve as a starting point for a comprehensive resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Russia's ambitions as a mediator and an interested party could not be restricted to just a ceasefire. Russia wants and aims for stability, predictability, partnership, and open borders in the region.”

For Azerbaijan, this statement represents a “partial recognition” of its victory. Although official Baku tries to present a façade of satisfaction to its people, it cannot hide a certain tension stemming from its inability to achieve the maximum possible during the signing of the document. However, of course, on September 26, Azerbaijan could not even dream of such a result being recorded on November 10.

For the Armenian side, November 10 is undeniably an embarrassment and a capitulation. However, this document is perceived differently by the Armenian people and Nikol Pashinyan. For Nikol, the November 10 statement is an opportunity to maintain his position. It is no coincidence that he wants to convince everyone in Armenia that his removal would lead to a new war. He manipulates and deceives, trying to assure Russia that only the person who signed the statement can implement it, and that his removal from the Prime Minister's office would undermine the chances of realizing the terms of that statement.

In Russia, there are also concerns that the next Armenian authorities might start playing their own game, which could range from rejecting previous agreements to embarking on new adventures and wars. However, Russia cannot ignore the risks, issues, and challenges associated with Nikol and the transitory nature of his power.

Azerbaijan, for its part, is sabotage the implementation of the statement, evidenced by the retention of more than 100 prisoners of war. The difference in approaches and expectations compels one to compare the situation following the November 10 statement to an ordinary balloon that could burst at any moment. Remember: “The balloon thought that life had been breathed into it, but it turned out it was just inflated.”

The statement, which has stopped the bloodshed in Artsakh and could have become the first step toward resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, may ignite new sparks if handled as it currently is by the signing parties. Concealing facts and the myths surrounding the statement, as well as the disproportionate nature of its implementation, could ultimately lead to the return of Turkey, with aspirations reminiscent of the Ottoman Empire, to our region. Is this what those who stopped the war in Karabakh expected? Definitely not.

The November 10 statement, with all its shortcomings and unrefined points, could undoubtedly serve as a starting point for the resolution process of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. And of course, a Russian program could lead to that, and it is realistic. However, there is one 'but': all this is possible only in the presence of legitimate players, true mediators, and a genuine willingness to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh issue and build friendly relations in the region.

Here, we must return and soberly assess reality. Nikol Pashinyan, whose planning horizon is limited to the armrest of his chair, is simply incompatible with any serious plan and long-term perspective. Aliyev, who views the current status of Nagorno-Karabakh resolution as provisional, is trying to extract maximum benefit from the current situation, exploiting Nikol's weakness. The conflict is not resolved, cannot be resolved, and will not be resolved as long as the parties focus on trade rather than peace. As long as the Armenian side's objective is not resolution but the preservation of power, the spirit and essence of the statement will not be realized. Major projects, and resolution undoubtedly is a major one, must be guided by pragmatic, predictable, and responsible partners. Otherwise, their implementation is unlikely.