How Brussels sabotaging Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process [OPINION]

The European Union’s decision to allocate €20 million to Armenia
through the European Peace Facility raises serious and unavoidable
questions, not only about Brussels’ judgment, but about its
credibility as a neutral actor in the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace
process.

At a moment when the South Caucasus stands at a fragile but
historic crossroads, such a move sends precisely the wrong signal.
Rather than consolidating peace, it risks destabilising a region
that has only recently emerged from decades of conflict.

From Azerbaijan’s perspective, the decision directly contradicts
the spirit and substance of the 8 August 2025 Washington
agenda, which prioritised de-escalation,
confidence-building, and a comprehensive peace settlement between
Baku and Yerevan. That agenda was meant to close the chapter of
confrontation. The EU’s action, by contrast, appears to reopen
it.

If the conflict is indeed over, as European officials themselves
frequently assert, then the logic of channeling funds through a
military-linked mechanism becomes deeply
questionable. What threat, exactly, is being addressed? Against
whom? And why now? These questions have yet to receive credible
answers.

The European Peace Facility is not a humanitarian instrument. It
is a security and defence tool. Dressing military assistance in the
language of peace does not change its substance; and regional
actors understand this perfectly well. In the South Caucasus, where
trust is scarce and memories of war are fresh, symbolism matters.
This decision symbolises imbalance, not reassurance.

Worse still, it undermines the very peace-building process that
the EU claims to support. Sustainable peace between Azerbaijan and
Armenia can only be achieved through parity, restraint, and mutual
confidence, not through actions that strengthen one side while
leaving the other sidelined. By acting unilaterally, Brussels risks
injecting new tensions into an already delicate environment.

The message received in Baku is unmistakable: the EU is drifting
away from a balanced approach and edging towards selective
engagement. This is not a theoretical concern. The consequences are
practical and immediate. Such decisions complicate negotiations,
erode trust, and create incentives for hardliners rather than
moderates.

This is not the first time the EU has misstepped. Earlier
documents outlining a so-called “strategic agenda” with Armenia
included language that revived outdated narratives and implicitly
legitimised positions that belong firmly in the past. Instead of
supporting reconciliation, those texts echoed grievances that
fuelled conflict in the first place. The €20 million allocation
fits into a worrying pattern rather than standing as an isolated
error.

What makes the situation more perplexing is that Azerbaijan has
taken concrete steps to steer relations with the EU in a positive
and forward-looking direction. From energy security to regional
connectivity and post-conflict reconstruction, Baku has repeatedly
demonstrated willingness to engage constructively. Yet these
efforts are met not with balance, but with policies that appear
indifferent to Azerbaijani concerns.

If Brussels genuinely seeks stability in the South Caucasus,
then equilibrium must be restored. A peace-oriented policy cannot
favour one party while ignoring the other. If funds are allocated
through the Peace Facility, they should be matched, in equal
measure, for Azerbaijan. Anything less constitutes a structurally
imbalanced approach that undermines the EU’s claim to
impartiality.

Absent such balance, the EU risks being perceived not as a
mediator, but as a participant, the one whose actions could
unintentionally push the region towards renewed confrontation. That
would be a tragic irony for an institution that defines itself as a
champion of peace.

The South Caucasus does not need symbolic gestures disguised as
stabilisation. It needs consistency, fairness, and restraint.
Europe still has an opportunity to correct course. Whether it
chooses to do so will determine whether it is remembered as a
facilitator of peace or as an actor that, through miscalculation,
helped derail it.