With great fanfare, the long-frozen conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan took what is being broadly hailed as a major step towards peace, as the countries’ leaders signed the historic Agreement on Establishment of Peace and Inter-State Relations in a high-profile ceremony at the White House on August 8, 2025.  The document commits both states to recognizing each other’s sovereignty, establishing diplomatic relations, and resolving disputes peacefully.  For two neighbors whose relations have been defined by decades of war, mistrust, and frozen diplomacy, even appearing together in Washington to sign such a document marks an historic moment.  While the signing ceremony featured an abundance of smiles and handshakes, much is left to do.   

 Hosted by U.S. President Donald Trump, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev and Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan brought a familiarity to Washington earned over dozens of bilateral meetings during the last year.  “There should be no doubt and no suspicions that any of the sides would step back. If any of us, Prime Minister Pashinyan or myself, had in mind to step back, we would not have come here,” remarked President Aliyev at the press conference after signing. 

Yet, as significant as this ceremony was, the substance of the agreement reveals that while “everything has changed” symbolically, little has changed in the underlying positions of the two sides. The commitments laid out echo principles long discussed in negotiations, and most contentious issues remain unresolved or contingent on politically difficult next steps—most notably, Armenia’s need to amend its constitution via referendum, a process fraught with domestic political opposition.  The White House ceremony produced a peace framework in the truest sense of the term: a map of where the two sides could go, not a guarantee they will get there.

A Year of Quiet but Determined Negotiations

The signing was the culmination of more than a year of intense and direct bilateral talks conducted without the mediation—or, as in previous decades, domination—of Russia or other external powers. This is itself a major development. For most of the post-Soviet period, Moscow held a central role in managing (and often freezing) the conflict, positioning itself as indispensable to both sides while keeping leverage through arms sales, peacekeepers, and diplomatic pressure.  Russia even played a key role in international efforts at resolving the conflict.

What the Agreement Says

 

Key principles and commitments:

Mutual Recognition of Sovereignty and Borders:  Both sides reconfirm that the boundaries of their former Soviet Socialist Republics are their recognized international borders, to be respected and not altered, per the 1991 Alma-Ata border agreement. 

Renunciation of Territorial Claims: Armenia and Azerbaijan formally state they have no territorial claims against each other and will not raise such claims in the future. They also pledge not to support actions aimed at undermining each other’s territorial integrity. This caveat refers largely to the Karabakh territory and counters potential historic claims from Armenia emanating from the country’s pre-1991 declaration of independence claiming the land.

Non-Use of Force:  The parties agree to refrain from the use or threat of force and to prevent third parties from using their territory to launch military action against the other.

Non-Interference in Internal Affairs:  Both sides commit to staying out of each other’s domestic politics—a clause celebrating the peace negotiation’s successes that overrode propaganda and external lobbying as tools of influence.

Establishment of Diplomatic Relations:  Within a set period after ratification, the two states will open diplomatic relations, marking the first formal bilateral ties since independence.

Border Delimitation and Demarcation:  Dedicated commissions will finalize the exact border line, a technical but politically charged process.  Demarcation has been a cornerstone of conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with territorial disputes being a flashpoint since the Soviet collapse.  Some of the Soviet-era borders remain vague and need border commissions to delineate—a process which has already been initiated and working without incident for most of 2025. 

Security Measures Along the Border:  Pending final border demarcation, both sides agree not to host third-party troops along the frontier and to implement military confidence-building steps that build security and stability.

Humanitarian Commitments:  The agreement addresses missing persons and enforced disappear-ances from past conflicts, pledging cooperation to exchange information, recover remains, and seek justice.  Modalities for reconciliation and confidence building will be derived from a separate agreement. 

Economic and Transit Cooperation:  The two sides agree to work toward joint projects and agreements that facilitate trade, transport, environment, and culture—providing a legal framework for initiatives such as reopening rail lines and opening borders.

Dispute Resolution:  Disputes over the agreement’s interpretation or implementation are to be addressed according to international law and through bilateral consultations, and, if needed, other peaceful means.  Pre-existing disputes are to be resolved within one month of the agreement’s signing.

Implementation Oversight:  A bilateral commission will monitor compliance, and both sides pledge to drop pre-existing legal claims against each other in various forums.

For over two decades, the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, co-chaired by the United States, France, and Russia, tried to mediate. The most ambitious effort, the 2007 Madrid Principles, envisioned a phased withdrawal by Armenian forces, a corridor linking Armenia to Karabakh, return of the displaced persons, and an eventual referendum. But the entrenched and opposing narratives on both sides—territorial integrity for Azerbaijan and self-determination for ethnic Armenians—made compromise elusive. For the international community, the “frozen conflict” over the years was superseded by more urgent crises. For locals, it became a lived and generational trauma.  For Russia it was the chance to maintain a principal role in any subsequent negotiation in what Moscow calls its “near abroad,” i.e., the territory of the former Soviet Union.

That model began to erode after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, when Azerbaijan’s battlefield victory, backed by Türkiye, shifted the balance of power. By 2022, Armenia’s leadership had grown openly frustrated with Russian inaction during renewed clashes, at the same time that Azerbaijan was increasingly confident in its ability to set terms without Moscow’s blessing. Against this backdrop, the two sides explored talks hosted by the European Union, the United States, and other bilateral actors, eventually moving to a format where they negotiated directly, away from Russian oversight and other international participation.

Over the past year, negotiators from the two sides met in a mix of discreet bilateral encounters and publicly announced sessions. Progress was incremental. Agreements in principle were reached on border demarcation, transport links, and humanitarian issues, but implementation was largely deferred. Public rhetoric at times remained harsh, with both sides accusing the other of provocations. Yet both leaders remained committed to negotiation which was a major success, given the decades-long history of walkouts and breakdowns. 

Diplomatic Doggedness and Successes

The most visible achievement of the agreement is the fact that Armenia’s Prime Minister and Azerbaijan’s President appeared together, in Washington, to sign a public commitment to peace. This alone represents a breakthrough in the optics and diplomacy of the relationship. By putting their names to a document in such a high-profile setting, both leaders have raised the political cost of walking away, signaling to their own constituencies and the international community that they are prepared to move beyond decades of open hostility. 

A key element of this success is the way the process unfolded—through direct negotiations between Yerevan and Baku without Russia in the driver’s seat. For the first time in decades, the two countries steered their own peace initiative, freeing it from Moscow’s habitual role of mediator and gatekeeper. This autonomy is as much a political statement as it is a diplomatic milestone, indicating that both capitals are ready to chart a path less dependent on Russian leverage.

 The agreement also takes long-discussed principles and codifies them in a formal text. Recognition of borders, renunciation of territorial claims, and a commitment to peaceful dispute resolution are no longer aspirational talking points but binding clauses. This formalization adds legal and political weight to ideas that have been circulating for years. It also provides a framework for practical cooperation in areas like trade, transport, and cultural exchange, breathing life into connectivity plans such as reopening the Armenia–Azerbaijan rail link and opening border crossings. Even on the humanitarian front, the inclusion of commitments to address the fate of missing persons is a significant step because it acknowledges that reconciliation requires more than just political and territorial settlements.

More Work Ahead

Yet these achievements sit alongside unresolved challenges that could easily stall progress. Chief among them is Armenia’s constitutional hurdle. The current constitution contains language that implies a claim to Nagorno-Karabakh, and full compliance with the new agreement will require amending it—a change that can only be made through a referendum. Given Armenia’s fractured political climate, nationalist opposition, and public resentment over the losses of the 2020 war, securing such an amendment could be politically perilous for Prime Minister Pashinyan.

Border demarcation remains another potential flashpoint. The process of drawing the exact line between the two countries, especially in areas where ethnic communities are intermingled or the geography is contested, has the potential to spark new disputes. Likewise, both sides are still looking for security assurances. Armenia fears Azerbaijani military pressure along key transport routes, while Azerbaijan remains wary of threats to its citizens transiting through Armenian territory to its Nakhchivan exclave.

Underlying all of this is a deficit of trust built over years of conflict and antagonistic rhetoric that has hardened public opinion on both sides.  While the agreement sets out ambitious frameworks for cooperation, the task of turning them into tangible, mutually beneficial projects will require not just political will but also a deliberate, sustained effort to demonstrate that peace brings practical benefits that can generate the kind of societal buy-in necessary for a durable peace.

In this sense, the agreement’s successes are inseparable from its challenges: the symbolic leap forward in signing an agreement is precisely what makes the remaining obstacles more urgent and more politically charged.  

 

‘Everything Has Changed’ 

In substantive terms, the agreement reflects positions each side has held, at least rhetorically, for the past year: recognition of borders, no territorial claims, interest in transport links, and willingness to negotiate humanitarian issues. The sticking points—constitutional change for Armenia, security guarantees for Azerbaijan—remain unresolved.

Yet the optics and the venue are significant. By standing together in Washington, both leaders have tied their personal political reputations to this framework. That creates momentum, but also risk: failure to follow through would now be seen not just as a local setback, but as a breach of an internationally witnessed promise.

Moving Forward: Railways, Borders, and Beyond

One of the most concrete next steps is transport connectivity. Both sides are discussing reopening the Soviet-era rail link from Azerbaijan through Armenia to Nakhchivan and on to Türkiye, as well as road connections. If implemented, these could transform trade in the South Caucasus, integrating Armenia into east–west transit corridors and giving Azerbaijan direct access to its exclave without transiting Iran.  

Central Asian countries and Türkiye also have strong interests to see trade and energy connectivity flourish and could assist in establishing soft connectivity cooperation in fees, taxes, and customs regulations. This is perhaps the most important challenge for a peace settlement, ensuring benefits for both Baku and Yerevan that improve lives and reduce the sting of conflict.  These border openings for commerce and travel are key confidence-building measures, as is potential cooperation on missing persons. Joint economic and environmental projects could also serve as early wins but will take time.

A Beginning, Not the End

The Armenia–Azerbaijan peace framework is both an important diplomatic step forward as well as a reminder of how much work remains. Its greatest significance lies not in the text’s novelty—it mostly codifies principles discussed for years—but in the political will shown by signing it, in public, at the White House, without Russia in the room.  That act shifts the conflict’s diplomatic center of gravity, gives new life to stalled initiatives like rail connectivity, and creates a mechanism for ongoing dialogue. But the agreement does not erase decades of mistrust or the political hurdles each side must still clear to implement its commitments.

For Armenia and Azerbaijan, peace must deliver tangible benefits. Historic narratives cannot be erased—but they can evolve.  While the agreement might mark the end of a war, it is also only the beginning of peace. The South Caucasus stands on the brink of transformation; however, peace will only hold if it delivers—not just for elites and geopoliticians, but for the ordinary citizens whose lives were shaped by war.

The next chapter will depend on political courage, international engagement, and, perhaps most importantly, the willingness of the two nations to look beyond the ghosts of their past and toward the roads—literal and figurative—that could connect their futures.  If the past year of bilateral negotiations shows anything, it is that both sides can stay engaged despite provocations. The challenge now is to translate signatures into action—and to ensure this agreement becomes the foundation for lasting peace rather than another footnote in the long history of unfulfilled promises in the South Caucasus.