The addresses delivered by Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev at the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly were rich in symbolism and rhetoric, yet they revealed profound contradictions that expose how fragile the peace process in the Caucasus truly is.

Pashinyan: A rhetoric of hope amid fragile realities
The Armenian Prime Minister began his remarks with a telling confession:
“Such were also my speeches from 2018 to 2023… Last year, at the 79th session of the General Assembly, for the first time I tried not to speak of conflict, but of peace.”

With these words, Pashinyan admitted that Armenia’s narrative had long been trapped in the logic of confrontation. Today, he seeks to project a shift toward reconciliation.

Referring to the initial agreement signed in Washington on August 8, he stated:
“The parties confirm their understanding that the borders of the Soviet republics have become international borders… and mutually recognize and respect each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence.”

This passage is key: it places the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration as the legal foundation of border delimitation. Yet, in practice, the demarcation remains fraught with tensions and risks.

Aliyev: Victory proclaimed and a narrative of justice
The Azerbaijani president, in contrast, opened in triumphal tone:
“Today I will speak of our long road to victory and peace… of how we managed to end the occupation through a war of liberation… and of how we won peace by political means.”

Aliyev reinforced his narrative with figures and UN resolutions, framing Azerbaijan’s pain as justification for total military victory, while entirely omitting any reference to the rights of Artsakh Armenians.

He further celebrated the Washington agreement by declaring:
“On August 8… the foreign ministers initialed the text of the peace agreement… Azerbaijan and Armenia jointly requested the closure of the OSCE Minsk Group… as an obsolete mechanism no longer relevant to the peace process.”

This reveals Baku’s intent: to define peace exclusively on its own terms, excluding international mediators.

Peace in words, instability in reality
The speeches highlight:

• For Aliyev, peace means the consolidation of an irreversible victory and the submission of the defeated.

• For Pashinyan, peace is a fragile horizon built on continuous concessions.

Both leaders avoided addressing the human tragedy—prisoners, missing persons, displaced families, and the looming threat of renewed military pressure.

Critical conclusion
The UN stage made clear that not everything labeled as “peace” is truly peace. For Aliyev, it is the disguise of ethnic cleansing as a triumphant return. For Pashinyan, it is a fragile pursuit overshadowed by internal weakness.

Real peace will not be achieved through solemn speeches in New York but through mechanisms of oversight, justice, and tangible security.

The diaspora and the international community must read between the lines: the risk is that “normalization” becomes silence and submission. The challenge is to transform words into verifiable actions and to defend Armenian dignity with steadfast determination.