Latest news with #Armenia
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
Kremlin responds to Azerbaijan's position on Ukraine conflict
Russia disagrees with Azerbaijan's stance on the Ukraine conflict but hopes that this divergence in views will not hinder efforts to restore bilateral ties in light of a recent rift, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Tuesday. He added that Moscow wants to resolve the tensions in its relationship with Baku. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev recently urged Ukraine to 'never agree to occupation.' Speaking at the Shusha Global Media Forum last week, Aliyev encouraged Kiev to consider Azerbaijan's approach to resolving its territorial dispute with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. The longstanding conflict between Baku and Yerevan over the breakaway region ended in 2023 after Azerbaijan retook it by force, prompting the departure of its remaining ethnic Armenian population. Peskov acknowledged the differences in the positions of Russia and Azerbaijan on the Ukraine conflict, but insisted that this has not been an obstacle in relations. He added that Moscow seeks 'to move past what we hope is a brief period of cooling in bilateral relations and avoid sacrificing mutually beneficial interests for the sake of a short-term situation.' Tensions between Moscow and Baku have been rising following the deaths of two Azerbaijani nationals suspected of being gang members during a Russian law enforcement operation in Ekaterinburg last month. The Azerbaijani authorities rejected the conclusions of the Russian investigation and accused the police of unlawful killings. In response, Azerbaijani police raided the local office of the Russian news network Sputnik, detaining two journalists along with several other Russian nationals. The government also suspended all Russia-related cultural events. Despite the strain, Moscow has emphasized the historically cooperative nature of its relationship with Baku and voiced hope for a de-escalation of tensions.
Khaleej Times
3 days ago
- Khaleej Times
Glamping in Armenia: The trendiest new outdoor escape for UAE travellers
Armenia is quickly becoming one of the hottest new travel trends among UAE residents, thanks to the rapid rise in popularity of glamping, a chic and comfortable alternative to traditional camping. With short direct flights and new visa-free access for GCC nationals and residents from July 1, Armenia is becoming an even more accessible escape for nature lovers, offering breathtaking landscapes, rich cultural experiences, and unique glamping opportunities in its unspoiled outdoors. Glamping is redefining travel for UAE visitors eager to combine outdoor adventure with comfort. Armenia's top glamping sites in regions such as Lori and Tavush, offer luxury tents set amid breathtaking scenery, complete with plush bedding and private amenities. Guests can explore ancient monasteries, hike forested trails, ride horses through the mountains, and dine on farm-fresh local cuisine, all while surrounded by Armenia's unspoiled natural beauty. With its unique blend of nature, culture, and authentic gastronomy, glamping in Armenia delivers an immersive experience unlike any other. Visitors can enjoy not only remarkable scenery but also curated local experiences, including gourmet Armenian cuisine served under starlit skies, personalized hospitality, and engaging cultural encounters. This aligns perfectly with current lifestyle trends, focusing on wellness, sustainability, and genuine connections with nature and community. Armenia's flourishing popularity highlights its growing role as a must-visit destination, attracting lifestyle-oriented travellers seeking a fresh, exciting, and convenient outdoor experience.
The National
4 days ago
- Politics
- The National
Armenia and Azerbaijan have taken a new route in their quest for peace
Political scientists and wider civil society from Armenia and Azerbaijan don't often see eye to eye. After decades of war between the two countries their grievances run deep, with each side blaming the other for continued rounds of conflict. But experts in Yerevan and Baku can now agree on one thing: the meeting held in Abu Dhabi on July 10 between their heads of government was a moment of respite for the South Caucasus. After months without a major meeting between the two sides (the leaders met briefly at the margins of the European Political Community summit in Tirana in May), Abu Dhabi was able to host their most comprehensive gathering in known history, attended by representatives who cover all key aspects of the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process. Still, expectations should be managed. The two sides may yet be very far from signing a peace agreement, though a draft was announced earlier this year. There are thorny issues, like border demarcation, that remain unresolved. And there are competing visions for how the future of transport links should evolve. Nonetheless, the Abu Dhabi meeting has revived the diplomatic track, giving new hope for peace and stability, while calming fears of an imminent outbreak of war. The risk of military escalation has come down considerably; as recently as December, foreign diplomats in Yerevan predicted that a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan would likely take place by summer. But Abu Dhabi changed the atmospherics and the overall direction of talks. The risk of military escalation has come down considerably At a joint dialogue last weekend, Azerbaijani, Armenian and Turkish think-tank experts discussed the impact of the Abu Dhabi dialogue. 'There is comfort with the UAE as a benign, trusted facilitator,' reflected one attendee, Ahmad Alili of the Caucasus Policy Analysis Centre in Baku. 'It was quite a good start and creates a new precedent for bilateral talks.' One notable shift was the idea that the road to peace now could run through the global south, rather than the traditional interlocutors in Russisa and the West. Starting in the 1990s, the peace process had been jointly managed by Washington, Moscow and Paris as co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. The arrangement reflected an idealistic notion that gained popularity after the collapse of the USSR that Russia and the West could collaborate to solve problems in the former Soviet republics. But a new era of intense competition between the US and Russia derailed such thinking. The animosity accompanying the war in Ukraine, in particular, has cast a shadow over the South Caucasus, too. Washington has worked to expand its influence in Armenia and push out Russian influence wherever it could. The US and Russia are hardly able to talk to each other; co-hosting diplomatic initiatives between Armenia and Azerbaijan appears to be out of the question. Instead, the two superpowers have launched parallel and often contradictory negotiation tracks, jostling for the opportunity to broker a landmark deal that would invariably be shaped to their liking. For Russia, it would be a deal that gave Moscow privileged influence over new transit routes and border crossings between Armenia and Azerbaijan – if their currently sealed border were to re-open. The US, in contrast, would want to shape a deal that minimises Russia's role in the region across multiple spheres. That would include much less reliance in Armenia on the Russian troops patrolling its borders with Iran and Turkey, as well as the Russian military base that has been in the country since the 1940s to maintain peace and stability. Were it to oversee a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which would also likely unfreeze relations between Armenia and Turkey, Washington would shape a new regional order in Russia's backyard. That setup would seamlessly connect Europe and Turkey, a Nato ally, to Central Asia. These are the stakes in an Armenia-Azerbaijan peace deal, and they illustrate the extent to which the South Caucasus could see a step change in any deal – even one brokered without superpower involvement. Stability begets development, and with a much-needed calm in the South Caucasus the peace dividend would be significant. Over time, trade routes that run from East-to-West and North-to-South could shorten transit times across key geographies. After the recent turbulence and conflict dynamics in Iran, this would provide the region with an undergirding of stability. The talks in Abu Dhabi were also a remarkable first for direct diplomacy. It was the first major public meeting in which Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan engaged in extended one-on-one talks, without Russians, Americans or any other third-country nationals in the room. This was a key demand for Azerbaijan, which has long wanted to deal with its neighbour on a bilateral basis. This may favour Baku given the imbalance of power between the two states – Baku has far greater military and energy resources to hand – but Armenia still benefits from the process. Yerevan is much better off with direct talks than with a complete break in the peace process, as it staves off the steep cost of armed conflict. Short-term success in the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process may be elusive. One of Azerbaijan's preconditions for signing a deal has been a change in the text of Armenia's constitution, eliminating references to the Armenian declaration of independence adopted in 1990. That would require a public referendum that could take place in June 2026, at the earliest, when a government panel is expected to submit a draft for a new constitution. But there could be flexibility around even this sticking point. Having a revived process is already a major step forward, enabling parties to craft new solutions to their old concerns. During a press conference in Yerevan on Wednesday, Mr Pashinyan mentioned that the preliminary signing of a peace agreement was discussed in Abu Dhabi. This reinforces that the meeting has put the peace process on stronger footing. Holding talks in the light of Abu Dhabi makes it more likely that Armenia and Azerbaijan will find their way forward, as it highlights the opportunity that lies ahead if they can prioritise the future over the past. Global powers interested in the development of the South Caucasus should continue to deliver a clear message: stability will bring prosperity to Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the time for military escalation is over. Armenia has shown its willingness to make steep concessions for the sake of peace. Azerbaijan should be satisfied by its victories in 2020 and 2023, pivot toward an orientation toward peace and use this unique opportunity to turn the page on the animosity in the South Caucasus.
Forbes
4 days ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Russia's Military Alliance Is Slowly Unraveling
ASTANA, KAZAKHSTAN - NOVEMBER 8: Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev (C), Russian President ... More Vladimir Putin (3rd R), Kyrgyz President Sooronbay Jeenbekov (3rd L), Tajik President Emomali Rakhmon (2nd R), Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan (L) and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko (2nd L) pose for a photo during a session of the Collective Security Council of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) at the Independence Palace on November 8, 2018 in Astana, Kazakhstan. Leaders of Russia, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Tajikistan and Kyrgystan have gathered in Astana for a one-day summit. (Photo by Aliia Raimbekova/) Getty Images Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan held a press conference with media representatives this week to discuss Armenia's economic and social issues, as well as the country's relationship with Russia. During the session, he also hinted at Armenia's future in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Formed in 1992, the CSTO was created to serve as a military alliance for countries in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. The organization, led by Russia, was seen as a successor to the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. Armenia was one of the founding members of the CSTO. Since joining the organization, the Armenian military has conducted numerous training exercises and operations with the other CSTO members. The Armenians even chaired the organization in 2021. Since then, Armenia's relationship with the CSTO and Russia has faltered. Armenia accused the CSTO of failing to 'fulfill its obligations to Armenia.' The Armenians stated that the collective did not send protection during Azerbaijan's attacks in 2020 and 2023. As a result, Armenia froze its membership in the organization in February 2024. Since then, Armenia has not participated in CSTO training exercises. During the July 16 press conference, Pashinyan was asked about Armenia's future in the CSTO. The Armenian prime minister stated that it was 'more likely for Armenia to withdraw from [the CSTO] than to reactivate its membership.' Should Armenia withdraw from the CSTO, it would not be the first time a country has left the organization. For example, after joining in 1992, Azerbaijan and Georgia did not to renew their membership in 1999. Instead, these two countries chose to develop stronger relationships with other countries and organizations beyond the Russian-led CSTO. Then, in 2012, Uzbekistan withdrew from the CSTO after it claimed the collective had failed to come to its defense during a skirmish with fellow CSTO member Kyrgyzstan. Other countries have had issues with the CSTO and Russia. For example, Kazakhstan has toyed with the future of its membership. When the Russian Federation launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Russians turned to the CSTO for assistance. In response, the Kazakh government rejected Russia's full-scale invasion by not supporting Russian territorial gains in Ukraine. Instead, the Kazakh government sent humanitarian aid to Ukraine. Kazakh officials have also distanced themselves from Russia. For example, in October 2022, Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev opted not to hold a bilateral meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin during a summit in Kazakhstan. The episode caused Putin to state that Russia demanded respect from Kazakhstan. Then, in June 2023, Tokayev did not attend a Russian-led economic forum in St. Petersburg. Since then, Kazakh officials have begun meeting more regularly with their counterparts from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union. CSTO members Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan have not been as defiant toward Russia as Armenia and Kazakhstan. But they still have had their differences. In the case of Belarus, the Belarusian military has continued to hold training exercises and engagements with Russian forces. Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has also met with Putin frequently to discuss the economic and energy relationship between Belarus and Russia. Despite this continued interaction, Lukashenko has repeatedly denied Putin's request to send Belarusian soldiers into Ukraine. In addition, a Newsweek report stated that most Belarusian citizens oppose their country's participation in Russia's war. Similarly, several Belarusian military officers do not want to participate in Russia's war. Meanwhile, the Kyrgyzstani government has been hesitant toward its relationship with the CSTO and Russia. In October 2022, Kyrgyzstani President Sadyr skipped an economic gathering organized by the Russian Federation. Kyrgyzstan then canceled a CSTO training exercise that it was supposed to host. Additionally, the Kyrgyzstani government has not deployed soldiers to assist Russia in its war. Finally, a report by The Diplomat stated that the Kyrgyzstani government has advised citizens not to travel to Russia. Finally, like the other CSTO members, Tajikistan has opted not to send soldiers to help Russia fight in its war against Ukraine. Additionally, a report by Eurasianet found that several dual Tajik-Russian citizens have considered relinquishing their Russian nationality as they do not want to be conscripted into the Russian army. Given these developments, a sense of uneasiness is growing across the CSTO. Some members have begun distancing themselves from the Russian Federation, and two countries have openly defied the military organization. The CSTO was formed as a successor to the Warsaw Pact, but the organization is now facing serious challenges. It remains to be seen how Russia will mend its relationship with the other members so that its security collective does not falter.
Arab News
4 days ago
- Politics
- Arab News
US getting creative in search for Armenia-Azerbaijan peace deal
US President Donald Trump's Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Monday drew considerable attention for what appeared to be a shift in tone on Ukraine. But amid the headlines, another noteworthy — yet underreported — statement emerged. During a media Q&A, Trump declared that his administration was now close to finalizing a long-term peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This is no small claim. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been in some form of conflict since the collapse of the Soviet Union. What began as fighting in the early 1990s led to a frozen conflict and an Armenian occupation of a sizable chunk of Azerbaijani territory. This conflict exploded into a full-scale war in 2020, which ended in an Azerbaijani victory and the deployment of Russian peacekeepers to the region. By 2023, Azerbaijan had completed the liberation of all its territory taken by Armenia in the 1990s, Russian peacekeepers departed, and Baku and Yerevan started peace talks. However, a major sticking point remains. As part of the ceasefire agreement brokered in November 2020, Armenia committed to 'guarantee the security of transport connections' between Azerbaijan proper and its Nakhchivan exclave via Armenia's Syunik Province. However, no progress has been made on implementing this pledge. For Baku, the so-called Zangezur Corridor is a strategic priority. There is no direct land route connecting Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan and access through Armenia would resolve this logistical challenge. Baku has consistently stated that it does not seek Armenian territory, but merely a secure transport link. Domestic Armenian concerns, coupled with broader regional anxieties, have complicated any effort at compromise Luke Coffey Similar arrangements exist elsewhere in the world without raising sovereignty concerns. For instance, the US relies on transit through Canadian territory to access Alaska from the American mainland via the Alaska Highway. Likewise, Oman maintains a transit route through the UAE to connect with its Musandam exclave on the Strait of Hormuz — without infringing on Emirati sovereignty. In both cases, sovereignty remains respected, while practical transit needs are met. For Yerevan, however, the proposal has become politically toxic. Many Armenians fear that implementing the corridor would weaken their sovereignty or lead to the perception of territorial compromise. These domestic concerns, coupled with broader regional anxieties, have complicated any effort at compromise. Iran, in particular, has pressured Armenia against accepting such an agreement, driven by its long-standing geopolitical rivalry with Azerbaijan. So, what gives the Trump administration confidence that a final peace is within reach? To be fair, the Biden administration deserves credit for bringing both sides to the negotiating table in recent years. Trump has largely continued this process. Around the time of Trump's comments, the US ambassador to Turkiye floated an unusual idea: America could lease and manage the 43km stretch of road in Syunik for 100 years to guarantee its neutrality and security. Although Yerevan quickly rejected the suggestion, the fact that such creative proposals are being considered reflects an active American diplomatic effort behind the scenes. It also illustrates how this seemingly small strip of land has become symbolic of broader regional dynamics. Russia, long the dominant powerbroker in the South Caucasus, has been largely sidelined in the current talks. This reflects Moscow's diminishing influence, which stems from several factors: its overreach in Armenia, intervening in that country's domestic affairs; recent tensions with Baku over the arrest of Azerbaijani nationals in Russia; and the downing of an Azerbaijan Airlines plane over the North Caucasus earlier this year by Russian air defense missiles. Russia's faltering war effort in Ukraine has further diminished its credibility across the region. Iran strongly opposes the Zangezur Corridor. There are two key reasons for this. First, such a route would facilitate greater connectivity between Turkiye and Central Asia — reducing Iran's own relevance as a transit country. Second, it would diminish Tehran's influence over Azerbaijan. Currently, Baku relies on Iranian airspace and infrastructure to reach Nakhchivan. If the Zangezur Corridor were to become operational, Iran would lose this leverage. Russia, long the dominant powerbroker in the South Caucasus, has been largely sidelined in the current talks Luke Coffey Turkiye, meanwhile, sees the corridor not just as a logistical link but as a manifestation of a larger geopolitical and ideological vision. The road and rail connections through Armenia would link Anatolia to the Turkic states of Central Asia — Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and beyond. This would physically tie together a broader Turkic world, which Ankara seeks to strengthen through forums like the Organization of Turkic States. For the US, the Zangezur Corridor reflects a broader dilemma: how to engage effectively in a strategically important but geographically distant and complex region like the South Caucasus. While Trump touts his record of avoiding new wars, it is worth remembering that the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War erupted during his first term in 2020. That conflict, and the ceasefire it produced, laid the foundation for today's geopolitical situation in the region. Still, Trump's administration has invested considerable diplomatic energy into peacemaking — from Ukraine to the Middle East to Africa. The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict offers another opportunity to 'make a deal.' But like most issues in the South Caucasus, the reality is far more complicated than it may first appear. That is why the US leasing a corridor through Armenia, while innovative, is unlikely to gain traction. It faces domestic resistance in Yerevan, legal and sovereignty concerns, and geopolitical opposition from Russia and Iran. Yet the broader goal — peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan — is both worthwhile and achievable. Normalization between these two neighbors would have cascading benefits. It would pave the way for diplomatic ties between Turkiye and Armenia, which would open new trade, energy and transportation opportunities across the South Caucasus. Armenia, long excluded from regional infrastructure projects due to its conflict with Azerbaijan, would stand to gain significantly. This comes at a time when Armenia's economy is under pressure and its foreign policy orientation is slowly drifting away from Russia and toward Europe. For Washington, a stable South Caucasus aligns with US interests. It would enhance regional connectivity and reduce vulnerabilities in NATO's energy security — especially important given Europe's increasing reliance on Caspian energy resources as an alternative to Russian supplies. Whether the Trump administration can ultimately broker a lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan remains uncertain. But it deserves recognition for trying. With sustained effort, strategic creativity and regional buy-in, the US has a real chance to help end one of the post-Soviet world's longest unresolved conflicts.
