BAKU, Azerbaijan, August 8. Today's phone conversation between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia suggests that normalization is becoming increasingly institutionalized ,Irina Tsukerman, a US international law analyst and political observer, told Trend.
She pointed out that the timing of the call is highly significant because diplomacy often relies as much on political symbolism as on formal agreements.
"Holding the direct telephone conversation between the leaders exactly one year after the Washington breakthrough sends a message that both governments want the anniversary to represent continuity rather than merely commemorate a past event. The importance of the conversation extends beyond whatever specific issues were discussed. Leaders generally reserve direct communication for moments when they wish to demonstrate political commitment or maintain personal channels that can help prevent misunderstandings. Establishing that direct line of communication is itself an important confidence-building measure," the analyst added.
She noted that direct leader-to-leader communication also has practical value.
"Bureaucratic negotiations inevitably become slowed by procedural disagreements and competing institutional interests. Personal engagement between leaders can help maintain momentum, resolve misunderstandings more quickly, and provide political direction when negotiations encounter obstacles. The anniversary gives the conversation additional strategic meaning because it reinforces the idea that the Washington process did not conclude with a single summit. Instead, it established an ongoing framework for direct engagement that continues to evolve. Successful peace processes are built through repeated interactions that gradually increase trust and normalize communication. Taken together with other developments over the past year, including continued diplomatic contacts and symbolic gestures that would once have seemed politically impossible, today's conversation suggests that normalization is becoming increasingly institutionalized rather than remaining dependent on isolated diplomatic initiatives," said Tsukerman.
The American analyst believes that direct communication is becoming normal rather than exceptional.
"That gradual normalization may ultimately prove to be one of the most enduring legacies of the Washington process because lasting peace is sustained not only by signed agreements but also by the habit of continued dialogue, even when disagreements inevitably arise," she added.
Washington summit - a genuine turning point
Tsukerman noted that the Washington summit marked a genuine turning point because it shifted the peace process away from managing periodic crises and toward building a framework for a durable political settlement.
"Previous diplomatic efforts often focused on preventing the next escalation, while the Washington process concentrated on defining what a stable post-conflict relationship could actually look like. That distinction is important. Sustainable peace is not created simply by ending military confrontation. It requires political commitments, practical mechanisms for cooperation, and a willingness to normalize relations in ways that become increasingly difficult to reverse. The summit also demonstrated that both Azerbaijan and Armenia had reached a point where continued confrontation offered diminishing returns. Azerbaijan had already achieved its primary territorial objectives, while Armenia was increasingly focused on rebuilding its economy, strengthening state institutions, and reducing the costs associated with decades of unresolved conflict. Those changing strategic calculations created an opening that previous rounds of diplomacy simply did not have," she said.
The analyst noted that over the past year, progress has been measured less by dramatic announcements than by gradual changes in political behavior.
"The most significant achievement has been the continuation of direct dialogue between Baku and Yerevan. The fact that communication has continued, even during periods of disagreement, reflects a growing recognition that problems are more likely to be managed through negotiation than through military pressure. Several symbolic developments have also carried considerable weight because they help reshape public expectations. Symbolic gestures do not resolve technical disputes over borders, transportation, or legal arrangements, but they contribute to changing the political atmosphere in which those negotiations take place. Public opinion often evolves slowly, and symbols can prepare societies for broader reconciliation," she added.
Tsukerman went on to add that the Washington process also introduced a broader regional dimension by linking peace with economic development rather than treating them as separate issues.
"Projects involving transportation, trade corridors, and regional connectivity gave both governments practical incentives to maintain dialogue. Economic cooperation creates constituencies that benefit directly from stability, making renewed conflict increasingly costly for all sides. None of this means that every obstacle has disappeared. Border delimitation, implementation of transportation arrangements, domestic political pressures, and lingering mistrust remain real challenges. Peace agreements are rarely self-executing. They require sustained political leadership over many years. Nevertheless, after one year, the Washington summit deserves to be remembered as more than a successful diplomatic event. It established a new political trajectory. Instead of asking whether Azerbaijan and Armenia could ever negotiate seriously, the discussion increasingly revolves around how quickly they can implement what has already been agreed. That represents a profound shift in itself and offers grounds for cautious optimism about the future," she said.
Economic benefits of peace
Tsukerman noted that a lasting peace agreement would fundamentally change how the South Caucasus functions politically and economically.
"For decades, the region has been viewed primarily through the lens of frozen conflicts, military rivalries, and geopolitical competition. A durable settlement would allow it to be viewed instead as a crossroads connecting Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, and the Caspian basin. The greatest immediate benefit would be predictability. Investors, logistics companies, manufacturers, and infrastructure developers place enormous value on political stability. Even modest reductions in geopolitical risk can unlock projects that were previously considered too uncertain. Stable borders and reliable transportation links reduce costs, shorten delivery times, and encourage long-term investment. Transportation corridors could become one of the defining features of this transformation. Improved connections between Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan exclave through Armenian territory would create additional east-west and north-south trade routes that complement existing infrastructure rather than replace it. As cargo volumes continue to grow between Europe and Asia, having multiple secure and efficient routes increases resilience for international supply chains while creating new commercial opportunities for the countries along those corridors," she added.
The American analyst believes that energy cooperation could also expand.
"Azerbaijan already serves as an important supplier of energy to European markets. A more stable regional environment would facilitate additional infrastructure investments, electricity interconnections, renewable energy projects, and broader regional energy integration. Stability encourages financing, while uncertainty discourages it. The political effects may ultimately prove even more significant than the economic ones. Peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia would reduce one of the principal sources of instability in the South Caucasus and create greater space for regional governments to focus on economic modernization, technological development, education, and infrastructure rather than preparing for renewed military confrontation," she said.
Tsukerman noted that regional cooperation could gradually expand beyond transportation and trade into customs coordination, environmental management, disaster response, tourism, and cross-border commercial initiatives.
"These forms of practical cooperation often generate habits of communication that strengthen political stability over time," she added.
The analyst pointed out that internationally, a successful peace agreement would demonstrate that difficult conflicts can be resolved through sustained negotiations backed by clear political commitments.
"That would strengthen confidence among outside investors and partners while encouraging broader engagement with the region. Most importantly, a lasting peace would allow an entire generation to grow up viewing their neighbors less as permanent adversaries and more as participants in a shared regional economy. That kind of psychological transformation cannot be measured immediately, but over time it often becomes the strongest guarantee that peace will endure," she concluded.
