As is well known, in February of this year, a large group of civil society representatives, experts, and journalists from Azerbaijan visited Armenia as part of the “Peace Bridge” initiative. In April, a return visit by the Armenian group took place. The time has come to analyze the path traveled by this initiative.
The “Peace Bridge” marked a new chapter in civic diplomacy between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Its foundation was laid by a series of dialogue projects in recent years. Alongside other experts, NGO representatives, and journalists, these projects included political scientists Areg Kochinyan (President of the new analytical platform “Armenian Council”) and Farhad Mamedov (Chairman of the Center for South Caucasus Studies). They are also regular experts on the television cycle “Line of Contact”, broadcast on the PressClubs TV channel, which was founded by the Yerevan and Baku Press Clubs. Both this and other platforms of intensive cooperation prompted Areg and Farhad to petition the governments of both countries to support direct, bilateral unofficial contacts. The responses from the Secretary of the RA Security Council, Armen Grigoryan, and the Assistant to the President of AR, Hikmet Hajiyev, were positive.
As a first step, Armenian and Azerbaijani initiative groups were formed. In addition to Kochinyan and Mamedov, the Armenian side included Boris Navasardian (Honorary President of the Yerevan Press Club), Naira Sultanyan (Director of the Democracy Development Foundation), and “Armenian Council” experts Narek Minasyan and Samvel Meliksetyan. The Azerbaijani group included Rusif Huseynov (Director of the Topchubashov Center), Kamala Mamedova (Editor-in-Chief of 1news.az), Ramil Iskandarli (Chairman of the Board of the National NGO Forum), and human rights activist Dilara Efendieva, later replaced by Fuad Abdullayev of the Center for Analysis of International Relations.
In October-November 2025, mutual visits in a “5+5” format took place to Yerevan and Baku. For the first time, charter flights by Azerbaijani and Armenian airlines carrying participants landed at the capital airports of the neighboring countries. During the subsequent discussions, the participants touched upon the entire spectrum of bilateral relations and the potential contribution of the initiative to the peace process, emphasizing the need to expand the format to include organizations and experts specialized in various fields of established and potential interaction. It was at this stage that the initiative received the name “Peace Bridge”.
On February 13-14 of the current year, 39 (20+19) supporters of the Armenian-Azerbaijani dialogue gathered in Tsaghkadzor. Another “taboo” was broken: Azerbaijani participants crossed the land border between the two countries at a delimited section separating the Gazakh district (AR) and the Tavush region (RA), passing through all standard international border procedures. The symbolic significance of this event is particularly noteworthy, given that Azerbaijan has kept its land borders closed since the COVID-19 pandemic; an exception was effectively made for Armenia and the “Peace Bridge” initiative.
The expanded format allowed for a deeper discussion of joint projects. According to the participants of the Tsaghkadzor event, the land border crossing could serve as a precursor for modest attempts to establish direct bilateral trade and cargo transportation, bypassing third countries. This promising agenda also includes the idea of creating a market between neighboring border settlements to overcome mistrust and mutual isolation.
Alongside trade and economics, initiatives were proposed in “specialized” areas such as environmental protection and water resource management. Water is viewed not only for the needs of agriculture, industry, and the everyday requirements of the region’s population but also as a significant export item, given the South Caucasus’s wealth of freshwater reserves (the “Line of Contact” prepared a separate article on this topic). The sustainability of the respective plans depends on coordinated policies between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Joint measures against water loss and efforts for shared storage – especially considering that neighboring countries are in dire need of this resource – present serious opportunities. Furthermore, other raw materials from Azerbaijan could be processed at Armenian enterprises and vice versa. A significant signal was sent by high-ranking officials in Yerevan regarding the interconnection of the Armenian and Azerbaijani power grids. Another promising area of mutual interest is the creation of data centres in both countries, which would allow them to take a worthy place in the global market for artificial intelligence services. Interaction in this field could prove more profitable than competition.
The political process – primarily the signing of a peace treaty – was also a subject of intense discussion. While the constructive atmosphere did not mean total consensus, the lack of immediate agreement does not render the discussion of difficult topics futile. Among them, due attention was paid to the release of Armenian citizens detained in Baku and the potential return of refugees. Solutions likely lie in the realm of human rights compliance, which is directly linked to the normalization of interstate relations.
In the sensitive humanitarian sphere, initial steps toward reconciliation could include joint efforts to find information on missing persons, cooperation between official structures and civil society, joint programmes to protect Armenian and Azerbaijani cultural heritage sites located on the territory of the other country, as well as possibilities for refugees and displaced persons to visit abandoned cemeteries.
The media remains a traditionally vital sphere. Participants in the Tsaghkadzor meeting largely agreed on the need to reduce the intensity of the information war and find a common language, definitions, and terminology to foster constructive dialogue. Beyond the exchange of socio-political information, media professionals should collaborate on creating content that reflects the daily lives, customs, and concerns of ordinary people. The meeting also addressed the translation of literary works by contemporary authors reflecting the emotions and feelings associated with living in a conflict environment. In other words, dialogue through culture and literature will also help in understanding one another better and feeling a sense of shared belonging regarding the suffering and losses caused by the conflict. It is clear that this is a rather long and difficult process, but it must begin somewhere.
Trends emerging since July-August 2025 inspire confidence that Baku and Yerevan increasingly realize that while international partners are important, final issues can only be resolved through direct bilateral agreement. Partners can assist Armenia and Azerbaijan in establishing dialogue, but no one can assume the role of an external arbiter and, in place of the parties themselves, overcome the existing problems and contradictions. In this context, it is impossible to overstate the link between regional economic development and projects proposed by the United States – specifically those announced during Vice President Vance’s visit to Yerevan and Baku. TRIPP and other initiatives depend directly on a lasting peace; without it, these prospects will remain unrealized. This understanding is now taking hold not only among the leadership of both countries but also within the public, as evidenced by the “Peace Bridge” initiative.
The return visit of the Armenian “group of twenty” to Azerbaijan in April was mirrored in its organization; it also took place outside the capital – in Gabala – and reinforced the precedent of crossing the land border between the two countries. It was also similar in its subject matter. The war in Iran and the focus on it by the US and personally by the President of that country, Donald Trump, as key external catalysts of the Armenian-Azerbaijani process, as well as the election campaign in Armenia that distracted the entire attention of Nikol Pashinyan’s ruling team, necessitated a certain pause in the official dialogue between Baku and Yerevan. One could say that the “Peace Bridge” agenda developed “not in breadth, but in depth”. What will happen if events to the south of Azerbaijan and Armenia lead to a slowdown in the implementation of TRIPP, which after August 8, 2025, became a pivotal element in the normalization of bilateral relations? What “flagship initiatives” cementing the peace process could, if not replace the Trump route at worst, then complement it? What might be the outcome of the parliamentary elections and how will it affect the further course of events in the region, including the relations of South Caucasian countries with Russia and the referendum on the new Constitution in Armenia? The challenges faced by Baku and Yerevan suggested to the “Peace Bridge” participants the need to discuss various scenarios. At the same time, they realized the importance of steady forward movement and, in particular, set a goal to begin forming thematic expert clusters where ideas for deepening Armenian-Azerbaijani cooperation will be generated.
The dynamics within both societies are shifting under the influence of the rapprochement witnessed in 2025. This transformation is fueled by initiatives like “Peace Bridge” and “Line of Contact”, which resulted in the establishment of PressClubs TV. Launched in November last year, this platform offers sections such as “Events of the Week”, “Trending Topic”, “Feedback”, and “Living History”. The YPC and BPC initiative has already gathered a significant audience, and the constructive dialogue between Armenian and Azerbaijani participants – utilizing the “solutions journalism” method – is doing much to prepare public opinion for a constructive approach to the problems between the two countries.
It is obvious that skepticism toward such initiatives remains in certain circles of Armenian and Azerbaijani societies. But it is exactly for this reason that “Peace Bridge” has set a goal to expand its format as much as possible, engaging people with polar viewpoints in dialogue – both at the bilateral level and within each country. These joint efforts should help find the best solutions for the future of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the South Caucasus as a whole.