Azerbaijan.US
Even minor incidents between Armenians and Azerbaijanis today can quickly escalate into heated online confrontations. A recent example involved an Armenian skier who covered the word “Azerbaijan” on his uniform, sparking widespread debate across Armenian and Azerbaijani social media.
While the incident gained disproportionate attention, it was publicly condemned by Armenia’s Minister of Education, Science, Culture, and Sports, Zhanna Andreasyan, highlighting the complexity – and sensitivity – of such moments.
This episode served as the starting point for a broader discussion hosted by the Echo Baku platform, where political analyst Azad Isazade and researcher Sadat Guliyev examined a central question: are Armenian and Azerbaijani societies ready for peace – not at the governmental level, but within public consciousness?
Two levels of peace
Both experts agreed that a form of political peace already exists between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Active hostilities have ceased, bilateral negotiations continue, border demarcation has begun, and limited economic and logistical cooperation is taking shape.
Societal reconciliation, however, remains a far more complex challenge.
According to Isazade, every society contains a relatively small but vocal radical segment. The decisive factor, he argues, is whether the broader, often passive majority becomes influenced by these voices – a dynamic that historically contributed to escalation in the late Soviet period.
Competing narratives and historical memory
Guliyev noted that a significant portion of Armenian society continues to view itself primarily as a victim of the conflict, without fully acknowledging responsibility for the occupation of Azerbaijani territories. This perception, he argued, complicates prospects for societal reconciliation.
At the same time, Azerbaijani public opinion remains shaped by memories of displacement, civilian casualties, and destroyed cities. These divergent historical narratives reinforce mutual distrust and make emotional reconciliation unlikely in the near term.
Pragmatism over idealism
Despite these obstacles, both analysts emphasized that peace between societies should not be treated as an absolute prerequisite for stability. The core priority, they argued, is preventing renewed conflict and loss of life.
Economic cooperation, transport links, and regional connectivity may function as stabilizing mechanisms even in the absence of emotional rapprochement. While such pragmatism is unlikely to transform public attitudes overnight, it can reduce incentives for confrontation and help manage long-term risks.
Conclusion
A full societal reconciliation between Armenians and Azerbaijanis remains highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. The legacy of conflict and incompatible historical interpretations continue to weigh heavily on public consciousness.
Nevertheless, political agreements, managed coexistence, and pragmatic cooperation offer a viable alternative to renewed escalation. As the participants of the discussion stressed, the immediate objective is not friendship between societies, but a sustainable framework in which peace is more advantageous than war.
This analysis is based on an original expert discussion and does not rely on previously published English-language sources.
