Armenia–Azerbaijan fuel shipment carries symbolic weight – analyst

A recent shipment of 22 22 rail tank cars of Azerbaijani petrol to Armenia has more political symbolism than economic significance, according to political analyst Suren Surenyants.

Speaking after a meeting of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) leaders, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan publicly thanked Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev for facilitating cargo transit through Azerbaijani territory and for creating conditions to launch bilateral trade. To outside observers, the remarks appeared to signal a reduction in regional tensions.

However, Surenyants argues that such an interpretation is premature and does not reflect the underlying dynamics of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations.

“There is no peace treaty,” he said in s social media post on Monday, noting that Baku continues to advance both new and longstanding preconditions, including calls for changes to Armenia’s constitution. He also pointed to the ongoing occupation of Armenian territories and the imposition of severe sentences, including life imprisonment, on Armenian prisoners held in Azerbaijan.

Against this backdrop, Surenyants said isolated economic steps should not be mistaken for progress towards institutionalized peace. The import of 22 wagons of fuel, despite the attention it has attracted, “has no systemic economic importance”.

“It does not change the structure of Armenia’s energy market, reduce external dependencies or create long-term predictability,” he said. “What we are seeing is political symbolism rather than economic policy.”

According to the analyst, gestures framed as goodwill become problematic in the absence of reciprocity on core issues such as security, territorial integrity and the return of prisoners. In such circumstances, he argues, unilateral steps risk reinforcing the leverage of the stronger party while weakening the position of the side presenting the move as progress.

Public reaction in Armenia has been mixed. Surenyants says many view the fuel shipment primarily as a domestically driven political move, intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of a government-led “peace agenda” ahead of an election period.

“Peace requires clear political agreements, legal commitments and mutual responsibility,” he said. “Without these foundations, any ‘unblocking’ or ‘launch of trade’ remains fragile, easily reversible and vulnerable to short-term political manipulation.”

In this context, he believes the current process amounts less to institutional peace than to its imitation, an approach that, amid significant power and political imbalances, could increase risks over the long term rather than reduce them.