BAKU, Azerbaijan, August 8. Today's phone
conversation between the leaders of Azerbaijan
and Armenia suggests that normalization is becoming increasingly
institutionalized ,Irina Tsukerman, a US international law analyst
and political observer, told Trend.
She pointed out that the timing of the call is highly
significant because diplomacy often relies as much on political
symbolism as on formal agreements.
"Holding the direct telephone conversation between the leaders
exactly one year after the Washington breakthrough sends a message
that both governments want the anniversary to represent continuity
rather than merely commemorate a past event. The importance of the
conversation extends beyond whatever specific issues were
discussed. Leaders generally reserve direct communication for
moments when they wish to demonstrate political commitment or
maintain personal channels that can help prevent misunderstandings.
Establishing that direct line of communication is itself an
important confidence-building measure," the analyst added.
She noted that direct leader-to-leader communication also has
practical value.
"Bureaucratic negotiations inevitably become slowed by
procedural disagreements and competing institutional interests.
Personal engagement between leaders can help maintain momentum,
resolve misunderstandings more quickly, and provide political
direction when negotiations encounter obstacles. The anniversary
gives the conversation additional strategic meaning because it
reinforces the idea that the Washington process did not conclude
with a single summit. Instead, it established an ongoing framework
for direct engagement that continues to evolve. Successful peace
processes are built through repeated interactions that gradually
increase trust and normalize communication. Taken together with
other developments over the past year, including continued
diplomatic contacts and symbolic gestures that would once have
seemed politically impossible, today's conversation suggests that
normalization is becoming increasingly institutionalized rather
than remaining dependent on isolated diplomatic initiatives," said
Tsukerman.
The American analyst believes that direct communication is
becoming normal rather than exceptional.
"That gradual normalization may ultimately prove to be one of
the most enduring legacies of the Washington process because
lasting peace is sustained not only by signed agreements but also
by the habit of continued dialogue, even when disagreements
inevitably arise," she added.
Washington summit - a genuine turning point
Tsukerman noted that the Washington summit marked a genuine
turning point because it shifted the peace process away from
managing periodic crises and toward building a framework for a
durable political settlement.
"Previous diplomatic efforts often focused on preventing the
next escalation, while the Washington process concentrated on
defining what a stable post-conflict relationship could actually
look like. That distinction is important. Sustainable peace is not
created simply by ending military confrontation. It requires
political commitments, practical mechanisms for cooperation, and a
willingness to normalize relations in ways that become increasingly
difficult to reverse. The summit also demonstrated that both
Azerbaijan and Armenia had reached a point where continued
confrontation offered diminishing returns. Azerbaijan had already
achieved its primary territorial objectives, while Armenia was
increasingly focused on rebuilding its economy, strengthening state
institutions, and reducing the costs associated with decades of
unresolved conflict. Those changing strategic calculations created
an opening that previous rounds of diplomacy simply did not have,"
she said.
The analyst noted that over the past year, progress has been
measured less by dramatic announcements than by gradual changes in
political behavior.
"The most significant achievement has been the continuation of
direct dialogue between Baku and Yerevan. The fact that
communication has continued, even during periods of disagreement,
reflects a growing recognition that problems are more likely to be
managed through negotiation than through military pressure. Several
symbolic developments have also carried considerable weight because
they help reshape public expectations. Symbolic gestures do not
resolve technical disputes over borders, transportation, or legal
arrangements, but they contribute to changing the political
atmosphere in which those negotiations take place. Public opinion
often evolves slowly, and symbols can prepare societies for broader
reconciliation," she added.
Tsukerman went on to add that the Washington process also
introduced a broader regional dimension by linking peace with
economic development rather than treating them as separate
issues.
"Projects involving transportation, trade corridors, and
regional connectivity gave both governments practical incentives to
maintain dialogue. Economic cooperation creates constituencies that
benefit directly from stability, making renewed conflict
increasingly costly for all sides. None of this means that every
obstacle has disappeared. Border delimitation, implementation of
transportation arrangements, domestic political pressures, and
lingering mistrust remain real challenges. Peace agreements are
rarely self-executing. They require sustained political leadership
over many years. Nevertheless, after one year, the Washington
summit deserves to be remembered as more than a successful
diplomatic event. It established a new political trajectory.
Instead of asking whether Azerbaijan and Armenia could ever
negotiate seriously, the discussion increasingly revolves around
how quickly they can implement what has already been agreed. That
represents a profound shift in itself and offers grounds for
cautious optimism about the future," she said.
Economic benefits of peace
Tsukerman noted that a lasting peace agreement would
fundamentally change how the South Caucasus functions politically
and economically.
"For decades, the region has been viewed primarily through the
lens of frozen conflicts, military rivalries, and geopolitical
competition. A durable settlement would allow it to be viewed
instead as a crossroads connecting Europe, Central Asia, the Middle
East, and the Caspian basin. The greatest immediate benefit would
be predictability. Investors, logistics companies, manufacturers,
and infrastructure developers place enormous value on political
stability. Even modest reductions in geopolitical risk can unlock
projects that were previously considered too uncertain. Stable
borders and reliable transportation links reduce costs, shorten
delivery times, and encourage long-term investment. Transportation
corridors could become one of the defining features of this
transformation. Improved connections between Azerbaijan and its
Nakhchivan exclave through Armenian territory would create
additional east-west and north-south trade routes that complement
existing infrastructure rather than replace it. As cargo volumes
continue to grow between Europe and Asia, having multiple secure
and efficient routes increases resilience for international supply
chains while creating new commercial opportunities for the
countries along those corridors," she added.
The American analyst believes that energy cooperation could also
expand.
"Azerbaijan already serves as an important supplier of energy to
European markets. A more stable regional environment would
facilitate additional infrastructure investments, electricity
interconnections, renewable energy projects, and broader regional
energy integration. Stability encourages financing, while
uncertainty discourages it. The political effects may ultimately
prove even more significant than the economic ones. Peace between
Azerbaijan and Armenia would reduce one of the principal sources of
instability in the South Caucasus and create greater space for
regional governments to focus on economic modernization,
technological development, education, and infrastructure rather
than preparing for renewed military confrontation," she said.
Tsukerman noted that regional cooperation could gradually expand
beyond transportation and trade into customs coordination,
environmental management, disaster response, tourism, and
cross-border commercial initiatives.
"These forms of practical cooperation often generate habits of
communication that strengthen political stability over time," she
added.
The analyst pointed out that internationally, a successful peace
agreement would demonstrate that difficult conflicts can be
resolved through sustained negotiations backed by clear political
commitments.
"That would strengthen confidence among outside investors and
partners while encouraging broader engagement with the region. Most
importantly, a lasting peace would allow an entire generation to
grow up viewing their neighbors less as permanent adversaries and
more as participants in a shared regional economy. That kind of
psychological transformation cannot be measured immediately, but
over time it often becomes the strongest guarantee that peace will
endure," she concluded.
