President Aliyev in Munich: peace, power and new Caucasus reality

President Ilham Aliyev’s presence at the Munich Security Conference this February carried a symbolism that extended well beyond diplomatic routine. Munich has obviously long been a political arena for strategic recalibration, a stage where global powers test narratives and regional leaders present their case to a sceptical international audience. This year, Azerbaijan's leader arrived not as the head of a country locked in frozen conflict, but as the president of a state declaring that its decades-long confrontation with Armenia is over.

His interview with France 24 in Munich was therefore not simply a media appearance. It was an assertion: that the South Caucasus has entered a post-conflict era, and that Azerbaijan considers the peace process effectively complete. In tone and substance, Aliyev projected confidence. The war, in his telling, is finished; normalization is underway; what remains are technicalities.

That message, delivered at Europe’s premier security forum, was aimed not only at Armenia but at Washington, Brussels and Paris. The geopolitical contest over narratives continues, but Baku’s argument is clear: a new regional order has already been established.

“For me, it is done”

President Aliyev’s most striking formulation in the interview was his unequivocal claim that peace has already been achieved. Referring to the White House summit of 8 August, which was held in the presence of US President Donald Trump and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, he described the declaration as historic and final in political substance.

Six months without border shootings, unilateral easing of transit restrictions, and even the supply of critical oil products to Armenia were presented as tangible evidence that normalization is not theoretical. In Azerbaijani President's framing, the absence of violence is itself proof of structural change.

This is a subtle but significant shift. For years, the international community defined the Armenia–Azerbaijan file through the lens of unresolved status and mediation formats. In Munich, President Aliyev effectively inverted that paradigm: peace is not something to be negotiated into existence; it is something already achieved and awaiting formal codification.

The remaining obstacle, he argued, lies in Armenia’s constitution, specifically references tied to territorial claims on Qarabag. Here, the Azerbaijan's leader drew a clear red line. Without constitutional amendment, there will be no signed peace treaty. Yet even this was framed not as confrontation but as legal hygiene. Remove the outdated claim, and formal peace follows. He predicted it could happen within the year.

TRIPP and the strategic corridor

Perhaps the most geopolitically consequential segment of the interview concerned connectivity. The proposed Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, or TRIPP, linking mainland Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan through Armenian territory, was described by Aliyev as inevitable.

The symbolism is unmistakable. A corridor once associated with zero-sum rhetoric is now branded as an international infrastructure project backed by Washington. The United States’ strategic partnership charter with Azerbaijan, signed during Vice President JD Vance’s visit, further anchors this transformation.

President Aliyev highlighted defence cooperation, energy, AI and trade, signalling that Azerbaijan’s post-war strategy is not confined to regional consolidation. It is global positioning. By emphasising that the Armenian segment of the corridor is short compared to Azerbaijan’s own extensive railway construction, he reframed the debate: the bottleneck is political, not logistical.

For Europe, the implications are profound. A functioning corridor across the South Caucasus could reinforce east-west connectivity at a time when traditional routes are strained. Aliyev’s certainty in Munich suggested that Baku sees this as not merely a transport link, but a structural reordering of the region’s economic geography.

Justice without clemency

The most controversial moment in the interview concerned the sentencing of former leaders of the self-proclaimed Qarabag entity. When pressed about the possibility of clemency, Aliyev invoked the precedent of the Nuremberg trials. His comparison was uncompromising.

To many Western ears, the analogy will appear stark. However, domestically, it aligns with Azerbaijan’s longstanding narrative: that the conflict was marked by war crimes against its population and that accountability is non-negotiable. The Azerbaijani President insisted the trials were transparent, legally grounded and evidence-based.

Here lies the moral tension of post-conflict politics. Can reconciliation coexist with punitive justice? The answer of Azerbaijan's leader is unambiguous: justice is not an obstacle to peace; it is a prerequisite. Clemency, in his view, would undermine the moral foundation of the new order.

The Armenian question and reciprocity

On the departure of Armenians from Qarabag, President Ilham Aliyev reiterated that citizenship and residency options had been offered. He counterbalanced humanitarian concerns with the unresolved issue of Azerbaijani returnees displaced from what he terms Western Azerbaijan.

The principle he advanced was reciprocity. If the right of return is universal, it must apply equally. This framing attempts to shift the discourse from unilateral grievance to symmetrical rights. Whether that argument gains traction internationally remains to be seen, but it is consistent with Baku’s diplomatic messaging.

Resetting France

Eventually, relations with France formed the final arc of the interview. President Aliyev portrayed Azerbaijan as reactive rather than provocative, arguing that Paris’s parliamentary resolutions and political statements during the war period constituted interference.

His acknowledgement of a “restart button” with President Emmanuel Macron was notable. The tone was pragmatic rather than confrontational. In Munich and beyond, President Aliyev appears keen to signal that Azerbaijan’s disputes are issue-based, not ideological.

For Europe, this matters. A stable South Caucasus requires functional relations among its external stakeholders. President Ilham Aliyev’s readiness to re-engage suggests that Baku sees strategic benefit in de-escalating rhetorical tensions with Paris, even while defending its narrative of sovereignty.

A new reality

Taken together, President Ilham Aliyev’s Munich interview conveyed a clear thesis: the era of ambiguity in the South Caucasus is over. Territorial integrity has been restored, connectivity is advancing, and geopolitical alignments are expanding.

Sceptics will question whether peace can be declared unilaterally. Supporters will argue that facts on the ground speak louder than diplomatic hesitations. What is undeniable is that Azerbaijan’s leadership now speaks from a position of consolidated power.

Munich has often been a forum for warnings about instability. This time, Azerbaijan’s president delivered a different message: that the South Caucasus has entered a phase of irreversible transformation. Whether history will confirm that confidence remains to be seen. But in Munich, Ilham Aliyev left little doubt that he believes the page has already been turned.

---

About the author: Elnur Enveroglu is an Azerbaijani journalist and geopolitical analyst who currently serves as the Deputy Editor-in-Chief of AzerNEWS, Azerbaijan's first English-language weekly newspaper.