azatutyun.am
Armenia Attempts to Delay War Amid Stalled Azerbaijan Negotiations
Armenia's attempts to delay a war's end are highlighted in a recent interview, with Azerbaijan's persistent demands, and use of ultimatums causing stalled negotiations despite international pressure; two clauses remain unresolved in the peace treaty.
- How has Azerbaijan's strategy of using military threats influenced the negotiation process and Armenia's approach?
- Azerbaijan's unwavering stance and Armenia's attempts at compromise highlight a pattern of escalating threats in response to unmet demands. This approach, used since 2021, suggests that Azerbaijan leverages military threats to achieve concessions through negotiations. The stalled negotiations over a peace treaty, with only two clauses remaining unresolved, showcase this dynamic.
- What specific actions indicate a stalemate in Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations, and what are the immediate consequences?
- Armenia attempted to delay the war's conclusion," according to political scientist Narek Sukiasyan. Azerbaijan's persistent demands, coupled with Armenia's attempts to mitigate its stance to avoid war, have led to stalled negotiations. This is evidenced by Azerbaijan's consistent ultimatums, despite international pressure from the West, particularly the United States.
- What are the long-term implications of unresolved issues for lasting peace and stability in the region, and what critical perspectives are needed for a breakthrough?
- The unresolved issues, such as the return of Azerbaijanis to Armenia under special conditions, pose a significant long-term challenge. Even with a signed peace treaty, the underlying political will for continued antagonism remains a substantial obstacle to lasting peace. Future escalations, though potentially localized, remain a high risk.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing consistently portrays Armenia as reacting to Azerbaijani pressure, highlighting Armenia's attempts to mitigate the threat of war. The headline, while not explicitly provided, would likely reflect this perspective. The structure emphasizes Armenia's reactive stance rather than exploring the underlying causes or potential shared responsibility for the stalemate.
Language Bias
While the language is largely neutral in tone, the repeated emphasis on Azerbaijani 'pressure,' 'ultimatums,' and threats subtly shapes the narrative towards portraying Azerbaijan as the primary aggressor. Phrases like 'milder its position' could be replaced with 'adjust its stance' to appear more neutral.
Bias by Omission
The provided text focuses heavily on the Armenian perspective and the perceived pressures from Azerbaijan. Counterarguments or alternative perspectives from Azerbaijan are largely absent, creating an unbalanced view. The analysis omits details about the specific demands made by Azerbaijan, beyond mentioning 'three demands' and the issue of EU observers on the border. More specific information would enhance the analysis.
False Dichotomy
The interview presents a somewhat simplified view of the negotiation process, presenting it largely as a binary choice between Armenia making concessions or facing escalation from Azerbaijan. The complexities of international relations and the potential for alternative solutions are under-explored.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the stalled peace negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, highlighting the use of threats and ultimatums by Azerbaijan to achieve its objectives. This undermines efforts towards establishing peace and strong institutions, thus negatively impacting SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). The continued threats of war and the failure to reach a comprehensive peace agreement hinder progress towards peaceful and inclusive societies.