Azerbaijan and Armenia are moving gradually from political declarations toward practical cooperation, with transport projects, new supply routes and U.S.-backed technical planning for the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, or TRIPP, advancing even as a final peace agreement remains unsigned.
Independent analyst and political science candidate Elmira Talybzade said the remaining constitutional dispute in Armenia continues to block final signature of the agreement. At the same time, she said, Azerbaijan and Turkey are maintaining their strategic partnership despite recent public disagreements.
Talybzade made the assessment in a video interview with the Daily Europe Online YouTube channel, according to Vesti Baku. The discussion covered the Azerbaijan-Armenia settlement, expert-level contacts, the future of the Zangezur route, Baku-Ankara relations and Iran’s potential influence in the South Caucasus.
Economic Cooperation Moves Faster Than Political Agreements
Talybzade described the gradual development of practical contacts as one of the most important changes in relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Although a final peace treaty has not been signed, the two countries continue to discuss transport, energy and trade.
Azerbaijani territory is already being used for some transit deliveries to Armenia. Talybzade cited grain, diesel fuel and other goods arriving from third countries, saying such movements show that economic interests can create conditions for normalization even when political decisions are delayed.
TRIPP remains a central project. It is intended to develop a transport connection between mainland Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan exclave through Armenian territory with U.S. participation.
On Nov. 6, Azerbaijan, Armenia and the United States announced the launch of three-party technical working groups on transport and electricity transmission. Specialists are expected to agree on infrastructure specifications, connections with existing routes and conditions for implementation. The launch of the groups does not mean construction has begun or that all commercial terms have been settled.
Talybzade said practical economic cooperation is likely to develop faster than efforts to resolve the remaining political disputes.
Why the Peace Treaty Remains Unsigned
The principal obstacle, in Talybzade’s assessment, is the constitutional issue in Armenia. Baku has demanded the removal of provisions it views as containing territorial claims against Azerbaijan.
The dispute centers on a reference in the preamble of Armenia’s Constitution to the country’s Declaration of Independence, which in turn mentions decisions connected with Karabakh.
Armenian officials also frame constitutional reform as a matter of domestic political development. Amending the country’s basic law would involve a difficult parliamentary process and intense political competition.
Talybzade said it would be difficult to build the required political consensus in Yerevan and expressed doubt that major progress could be achieved by the end of 2026. She said some Armenian opposition forces could use the constitutional issue to increase pressure on Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government.
At the same time, she cautioned that it would be an oversimplification to describe every opponent of constitutional reform as opposing peace with Azerbaijan, because Armenia’s domestic debate covers broader questions of state organization.
For Baku, she said, the final agreement must rule out the possibility of renewed territorial disputes.
“Bridge of Peace” and Contacts Between Societies
Talybzade also highlighted continuing dialogue between members of Azerbaijani and Armenian expert communities, including the “Bridge of Peace” initiative connecting civil society representatives from the two countries.
She said the meetings have continued despite periodic pauses and organizational difficulties. Unlike official talks between state leaders, such contacts can address questions that are harder to resolve solely through diplomacy. Participants include political scientists as well as representatives of other professional and civic groups.
These initiatives are especially important after decades of conflict, Talybzade said, because public mistrust can persist even when political agreements are reached. Expert dialogue cannot replace official decisions, but it can help create conditions for state-level agreements to gain public support.
Baku and Ankara: Disagreements Do Not Mean an Alliance Crisis
Addressing recent tension between Azerbaijan and Turkey, Talybzade said isolated public disagreements should not automatically be treated as evidence of a crisis in the strategic partnership.
She said the two countries must combine close cooperation with respect for independent foreign-policy decisions. Turkey is a NATO member with an active policy in the Middle East, the Eastern Mediterranean and other regions. Azerbaijan follows a multi-vector foreign policy and maintains relations with the United States, Russia, China, Iran, Israel and European countries.
Complete agreement on every international issue would therefore be unrealistic, she said. Azerbaijan and Turkey nonetheless retain common interests in security, energy, transport, trade and the Middle Corridor. The 2021 Shusha Declaration formalized their allied relationship.
Talybzade said the recent differences underscored the need for closer political coordination and mutual respect for sovereign decisions. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Azerbaijan on Nov. 8, while Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev traveled to Turkey on Nov. 10-11 to attend COP31. The visits demonstrated continued high-level contact after the period of public tension.
When Could the Turkey-Armenia Border Open?
Talybzade linked normalization between Ankara and Yerevan closely to the Azerbaijan-Armenia peace process. She said Turkey is likely to continue taking Baku’s position into account when deciding whether to open its border with Armenia.
Economic contacts between Turkish and Armenian businesspeople already exist, including through Georgia. Talybzade said trade and public ties could support gradual rapprochement.
She pointed to 2031 as a long-term reference point and suggested the border might open by then. That was the analyst’s forecast, not an official timetable; no opening date has been announced.
Erdogan and Pashinyan met on the sidelines of COP31 in Antalya on Nov. 11. According to an official Armenian government statement, they discussed normalization, trade and economic ties and the unblocking of communications, including TRIPP.
Can Iran Stop TRIPP?
Talybzade was skeptical that Iran could significantly affect implementation of the new transport projects. She said domestic problems and economic difficulties limit Tehran’s ability to pursue an active regional policy.
She acknowledged that a U.S. presence in South Caucasus transport infrastructure concerns Iran’s leadership. She did not rule out further sharp statements or diplomatic complications, but said she doubted Iran could stop the development of communications between Azerbaijan and Armenia during the next two or three years.
That forecast does not mean Tehran lacks tools of influence. Iran maintains close economic ties with Armenia, wants to develop its own transport routes and views changes in the regional balance of power through the lens of national security.
Pashinyan also met Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on the sidelines of COP31, where the two discussed further bilateral cooperation. The future of regional transport links will therefore depend not only on agreements among Baku, Yerevan and Washington but also on how neighboring countries’ interests are addressed.
What Happens to the Peace Process After Trump?
The discussion also addressed the durability of U.S. involvement. The Washington agreements of Aug. 8, 2025, were reached with the mediation of U.S. President Donald Trump, raising questions about whether American support would survive future changes in Washington.
Talybzade said the peace process should not depend exclusively on a particular White House administration. Azerbaijan and Armenia had developed contacts before the Washington meeting, including direct bilateral engagement.
The decisive factor, she said, remains the political will of the two countries. U.S. participation can accelerate infrastructure projects, but the durability of the peace arrangements ultimately depends on the actions of Baku and Yerevan.
Economics Advances While Politics Lags
The central contradiction in the current stage of Azerbaijan-Armenia relations is the different pace of economic and political rapprochement. Transport projects are receiving technical detail, some trade contacts are developing and civil society representatives are continuing their dialogue.
A final peace treaty, however, remains tied to unresolved legal and political questions. Talybzade said practical cooperation could create additional incentives to complete the peace process, while warning that economic interdependence alone cannot eliminate political disputes.
The test for Azerbaijan and Armenia is whether they can turn existing agreements into a durable system of relations that does not depend on the next election, a change of administration in Washington or the position of outside powers. The answer will determine whether the current rapprochement remains a series of separate initiatives or becomes the foundation for long-term peace in the South Caucasus.