Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev now says he “hopes” a peace agreement with Armenia can be signed this year, framing the post-2025 period as a new era of stability. For a region exhausted by war, displacement, and uncertainty, this language is encouraging. But hope is not a strategy, and rhetoric is not a guarantee of lasting peace.
Aliyev’s message, delivered around the Munich Security Conference and amplified across regional media, claims that peace has already been achieved in practice and that only constitutional changes in Armenia stand in the way of a formal treaty. This framing risks shifting responsibility almost entirely onto Yerevan while downplaying the unresolved humanitarian, cultural, and security issues that define the Armenian experience today.
A treaty signed under such conditions would be fragile by design. True peace cannot be reduced to a diplomatic document. It must be felt as security, justice, and dignity by communities on both sides of the border.
Hostages and Human Dignity Cannot Be Ignored
The most glaring contradiction between declarations of peace and lived reality is the continued detention of Armenian and Christian hostages in Azerbaijani custody. As of early 2026, at least 19 remain imprisoned, even after a limited number were released in January. These individuals are not abstractions. They are fathers, sons, volunteers, and humanitarian workers. Each detainee represents a family living in fear and uncertainty.
Peace cannot coexist with hostage diplomacy.
Any credible agreement must include a clear, time-bound mechanism for the unconditional release of all remaining prisoners. It must establish independent monitoring and meaningful consequences for non-compliance. Without this, normalization risks becoming a façade that conceals ongoing coercion.
Cultural Erasure Is Not Reconciliation
Peace is also impossible if one side’s history is systematically erased. Armenian churches, cemeteries, monuments, and memorials have faced decades of destruction and alteration, particularly in Artsakh. These acts are not incidental. They are strategic. They seek to erase identity, memory, and the physical record of Armenian presence.
If Azerbaijan genuinely seeks a peace that will endure, it must commit to protecting and restoring Armenian cultural and religious heritage under international supervision. This means halting demolition, granting independent expert access, and funding preservation as part of a broader settlement.
Without these steps, the region risks moving not toward reconciliation but toward cultural extinction.
Borders, Sovereignty, and Security
Territorial integrity remains the bedrock of international order. Since 2020, Armenia has suffered substantial territorial loss, and portions of its internationally recognized land remain under Azerbaijani control. Meanwhile, the ideological framing of “Western Azerbaijan” signals continuing claims against Armenia’s sovereignty and national legitimacy.
A sustainable peace agreement must affirm Armenia’s borders unequivocally. It must include demilitarized zones, joint monitoring mechanisms, and enforceable dispute resolution frameworks. It must reject revisionist narratives that portray Armenia as temporary or illegitimate.
Without such guarantees, Armenians will not see peace. They will see only a pause before renewed pressure.
Ending Hate Speech Is a Security Imperative
Language shapes what societies tolerate. Even as officials speak of peace, hostile rhetoric continues to circulate in political discourse and media environments. Statements portraying Armenians as inherent threats undermine trust and fuel future violence.
Peace agreements that ignore incitement will not endure. A responsible framework must include commitments to end hate speech, legal accountability for extremist rhetoric, and educational and media initiatives that humanize both peoples.
Reconciliation is not possible while dehumanization persists.
The Role of the United States and the International Community
Recent U.S. engagement signals recognition of the South Caucasus as strategically vital. However, economic cooperation and diplomatic symbolism cannot substitute for sustained pressure on humanitarian and human rights concerns.
The United States and its partners should view Aliyev’s stated desire for a 2026 peace agreement as an opportunity, but not as an excuse to lower expectations.
Deeper cooperation with Azerbaijan should be linked to measurable progress in hostage release, heritage protection, border security, and the reduction of hate speech. At the same time, Armenia’s sovereignty and security must be reinforced so that it is never forced to exchange fundamental rights for temporary calm.
Human rights, religious freedom, and cultural preservation must be embedded as core benchmarks in any regional framework.
A Test of Credibility
President Aliyev’s words matter. They shape diplomatic momentum and global perception. But peace will not be judged by speeches in Munich or Doha. It will be judged by whether families are reunited, churches remain standing, borders are secure, and children are taught that their neighbors are human beings rather than enemies.
A 2026 agreement is possible. Whether it becomes a lasting peace or another fragile ceasefire will depend on the international community’s insistence that hostages, heritage, sovereignty, and dignity are treated not as peripheral issues but as foundational pillars.
Only then will hope become reality.
