The recent call of the US President for negotiations within the Minsk Group is not in line with international law and realities.
The Minsk process began because Armenia was pursuing a policy of aggression, deepening the conflict, committing massacres and genocide. The goal was to prevent this aggression, to achieve full peace at the conference to be held in Minsk in the summer of 1992, and to fully resolve the conflict. But neither practical work was done to prevent the occupation, nor to achieve complete peace. Even after a while, we saw that the issue of the conference was completely forgotten.
Since the 2000s, the Minsk Group co-chairs have simply tried to monopolize the process and keep the problem unresolved. Armenia continued its provocations, but the Co-Chairs did not speak out. In other words, the image of the Co-Chairs was not as a peacemaker, but as a group that wanted to prolong the process. After September 27, Azerbaijan was forced to comply with international law and ensure the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions. Now it remains only to sign the final peace.
After that, the contribution of the Co-Chairs may be to organize or participate in the process of signing the Final Peace Agreement in Minsk. From this time forth, their major work must contribute to ensuring an atmosphere of lasting peace and cooperation in the region, let them prevent Armenia from creating a new conflict situation and contribute to post-conflict reconstruction.
But they did not. On the contrary, it is flawed that they act as if the conflict is continuing, and sometimes even encourage Armenia to do wrong.
As for the approach of Azerbaijan to the Minsk process, the Azerbaijani side should invite the Co-Chairs to work and build on the signing of the final Peace Agreement in Minsk. In general, Azerbaijan is no longer a party to be invited to any uncertain process.
The farther away the Armenian government is from external and internal provocations, the better: both for the region as a whole and for Armenia itself.
As for Russia, on the one hand, it wants to limit the opportunities of its global rivals to return to the Caucasus. In this sense, it wants to continue with the November 10 agreement. On the other hand, he does not seem ready for a full solution to the conflict and wants “uncertainty” to continue.
In fact, the best way for all parties is to make lasting peace as soon as possible. Even those who see themselves as the “losing sides” of the 44-day war should not think that there is a need to look for opportunities for confusion. Uncertainty and the possibility of a resumption of the conflict are risky for everyone. But mostly for the losers of the 44-day war.