“These results were expected in principle. It is clear that the same scheme applied to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in 1994 has been repeated. There is no indication that the parties are ready for a ceasefire.”
This was stated in an interview with Minval.az by former Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Tofig Zulfugarov, commenting on the preliminary results of the U.S.-Russia negotiations held in Riyadh on February 18 without Ukraine’s participation.
— There are differences in opinions, but they concern other issues and are naturally aimed at the decisions made during these negotiations, which may be announced at the next meeting.
A new element is that an observer mission will likely be announced to oversee the ceasefire. In my opinion, achieving immediate results on this issue at this stage will be difficult. Most likely, a tactic will be used where the resolution of all complex issues will be postponed until the negotiation period.
Therefore, the only possible steps have been taken based on the positions of both sides—Ukraine and Russia—to establish a ceasefire. Mechanisms will be implemented to monitor compliance with this ceasefire. I do not see any other course of action because the parties are clearly not ready. Exchange deals and other such arrangements are unlikely. It is evident that a negotiation format similar to the OSCE Minsk Group will be established, involving regional states, European countries, the U.S., Russia, and Ukraine. Signals of such actions have already been received.
Another aspect relates to the modification of sanctions: I believe this is a pressing issue, and even its technical implementation will be postponed until ceasefire negotiations.
— Yesterday, some political experts claimed that the negotiations yielded no results, even though the American side considered them successful.
— I disagree with these experts because, before making statements on this matter, one must have at least some knowledge of negotiation techniques. Based on this, it was unrealistic to expect that complex issues would be resolved in a single meeting. That is impossible.
Furthermore, one must be aware of the initial statements that were made: Trump said that the continuation of military actions is unacceptable and that war does not solve problems. Therefore, the goal was to establish a ceasefire.
For instance, we can expect that in the near future, the phrase will be used: “The problems are complex, and in order to create conditions for their discussion, a ceasefire is necessary.” All issues concerning the parties will be raised during these negotiations.
Why do I think so? Because I know how diplomatic negotiators usually operate in such situations. For example, I would like to remind you that besides Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, presidential aide Yuri Ushakov participated in these negotiations. He was the one who coordinated the text of the Lisbon Summit with the Azerbaijani delegation in Lisbon and was also Russia’s permanent representative to the OSCE.
Negotiation techniques do not change. You see? When making public statements, so-called experts should understand that such issues cannot be resolved in a single meeting. Secondly, nowhere has it been stated that the U.S. aims to definitively end the conflict. That is also clear. The conflict is being transitioned from a hot phase to a latent one, with negotiation meetings and discussions where each side will defend its position. There will be long negotiations that will not lead to any results.
— Experts have focused on Donald Trump’s words—first, he said he would stop the conflict in a day, and later he said in 100 days…
— Stopping a conflict and resolving a conflict are two different concepts. Halting a phase of it, or the military phase, is one part of the issue. This means creating conditions for peaceful discussions on problems. After all, where is it stated that these problems must be resolved? Ukraine has its own position on these issues, the Western coalition—with various adjustments—has its own stance, and Russia has its own understanding of the situation. It is now clear, and all parties have agreed, that military action does not provide solutions to these problems. That is, Russia has realized that capturing Kyiv in three days is impossible, and Ukraine understands that defeating Russia militarily is also impossible. Trump has declared his position that he does not intend to enter a nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine. That is the reality.
— So, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio was not lying when he said the negotiations yielded positive preliminary results?
— Of course not, because their task was very simple and completely aligned with the Russian side’s goal—to stop the fighting. Russia realizes that even with Western aid, Ukraine cannot deliver it a military defeat. These are the basic facts of the situation we are discussing in order to understand the next course of events. Diplomats can only act within the limits of their capabilities.
A ceasefire will be established, and all issues will be discussed. Politically, neither Ukraine nor Russia will recognize the reality. Volodymyr Zelensky must say that he is defending Ukraine’s sovereignty, and Vladimir Putin must say that he was fighting NATO—each will claim their own victory. But the core issues will remain unresolved.
— There is already talk that Zelensky might be “removed” from power. What do you think will happen to him?
— What does “removed” mean? His presidential term ended in May last year. Due to the war, elections were canceled. So, there will be new elections. It’s clear what this means—during the elections, it will be determined who the voters support. I think there will be certain issues in Russia as well because Russians will also start asking questions: “What was this all about?”, “For what purpose?”, and “What have we gained from this war?” So, as they say, everyone will have problems. Many questions will arise. And how could it be otherwise when hundreds of thousands have died, vast territories have been destroyed, and enormous sums of money have been spent? What I am saying is simply common political logic.
— How will Europe behave in light of these negotiations?
— Europe will also become a participant in some kind of “Minsk Group” and, in these long negotiations, will present its ideas. But the negotiations will lead nowhere—that is clear to everyone. Russia will not give up the territories under its control, and Ukraine will not be able to pressure Russia into relinquishing them.
Now that everyone is talking about economic problems, sanctions will be used as bargaining chips.
— What about U.S. statements regarding rare-earth metals in Ukraine?
— There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Let Ukrainian politicians answer for that. They claimed to be defending Europe and the entire Western world. Now it turns out that not all the aid actually arrived; some was stolen before reaching Ukraine, and some was misappropriated within Ukraine. This is a big issue that will take years to address.
As for Trump’s demands to pay off debts, just recall World War II. The Soviet Union also paid off its debts. When decisions were made, all these factors should have been taken into account. I am not saying these are good or bad decisions—that is a separate discussion.
Remember how many loud voices insisted that “Ukraine must fight to the bitter end,” and so on? Let them answer your question today. There was an opportunity in Istanbul to achieve a ceasefire, but Ukraine’s leadership refused. Do you remember? It was clear even then.
— It was possible to avoid serious mistakes back then…
— These are not just serious mistakes—this is a tragedy. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers have died, and the country has suffered enormous destruction. I am not saying that Russia is right. Politics is a very complex matter, and one must consider not only principles but also possibilities. Realpolitik is different.
In this context, it would be useful to reflect on what happened to us regarding the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and to understand how skillfully Azerbaijan conducted its policy.
Let those who criticized Azerbaijan’s policy and claimed to know what should be done now sit down, think, and compare. This is a clear example of how conflict management works. Both Russia and Ukraine were drawn into this conflict, just as we were in our time. But a fool learns from their own mistakes, while a wise person learns from the mistakes of others. Ilham Aliyev successfully managed this difficult task 110%, shedding the burden of conflict—something Ukraine and Russia are unlikely to achieve. This will drag on for years.
