AIR Center responds to Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Center over anti-Azerbaijan narratives
The Center for Analysis of International Relations (AIR Center) has issued a response to the article titled “Azerbaijan’s ‘Neither War nor Peace’ Strategy Limits Rapprochement with Armenia,” authored by Bashir Kitachayev and published on January 7 on the official website of the Carnegie Endowment’s Russia and Eurasia Center, News.Az reports, citing the AIR Center.
The statement notes: “Unfortunately, this article is not the first example of the Carnegie Endowment’s Russia and Eurasia Center demonstrating a one sided position on Armenia Azerbaijan relations, both during the active phase of the conflict and in the context of the current peace process. This ideological rigidity prevents a balanced and objective assessment of the processes unfolding between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The article claims that Azerbaijan’s post conflict strategy is ambiguous in nature. In other words, while Azerbaijan officially promotes a peace agenda, it allegedly maintains hostile narratives toward Armenia for domestic political purposes. According to the article, peace in Azerbaijan is viewed not as an ultimate goal, but as a means to create a managed and controlled situation through the preservation of an external enemy image.
It is clear that this interpretation is based on a selective analysis of events and ignores the legal, historical, and structural realities that shaped both the former Armenia Azerbaijan conflict and the current peace process.
For nearly three decades, Armenia occupied approximately 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized territory, resulting in the forced displacement of more than 700 thousand people. Despite binding resolutions by international organizations, including the United Nations Security Council, demanding an end to the occupation, the situation remained unchanged for almost thirty years. The conflict is also remembered for acts of mass violence committed on an ethnic basis against Azerbaijani civilians in Khojaly, Agdaban, and Bashlibel.
The article fails to address the anti Azerbaijan sentiment present in political rhetoric, public discourse, educational materials, and social media in Armenia. This demonstrates the author’s asymmetric approach.
The next part of the article claims that references by Azerbaijani officials to “historical Azerbaijani lands” indicate the existence of ongoing territorial claims against Armenia. However, Azerbaijan’s official position, repeatedly stated by President Ilham Aliyev, is that the conflict has ended and that Baku has no territorial claims against Armenia.
On the contrary, Armenia’s Constitution and other normative legal documents contain explicit territorial claims against Azerbaijan, which constitute one of the main obstacles to achieving sustainable and lasting peace between the two countries.
At the same time, the fate of more than 250 thousand Azerbaijanis forcibly deported from the territory of the Armenian SSR between 1988 and 1992 remains one of Azerbaijan’s key concerns. International legal instruments, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Refugee Convention, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, clearly enshrine the right of return.
It should be noted that despite being the party subjected to occupation for many years, it was Azerbaijan that initiated the peace process after the Second Karabakh War.
It is worth recalling that 2025 was marked by a number of significant developments in the Azerbaijan Armenia peace process, creating a real foundation for long term stability in the South Caucasus. As stated in the Washington Declaration, moving from agreed texts to sustainable peace requires practical steps. The official position of Baku is that ensuring sustainable peace necessitates the elimination of the institutional remnants of the former conflict. This primarily concerns the removal of provisions related to territorial claims against Azerbaijan from Armenia’s Constitution and other normative legal documents.
As a practical step, Azerbaijan allowed the transit of Kazakh and Russian grain to Armenia through its territory, a practice that did not exist during the years of conflict. As another important step, Baku recently ensured the delivery of petroleum products to Armenia via the Georgian route. These actions clearly demonstrate Azerbaijan’s readiness for normalization and for building confidence between the parties.
Nevertheless, some research centers, including the Carnegie Endowment’s Russia and Eurasia Center, continue to approach Azerbaijan’s post conflict policy with suspicion based on selective, asymmetric, and biased analysis. They also ignore calls for substantive dialogue and refuse to respond to appeals made by the AIR Center.”
Similar news
