Armenia has taken enough steps toward peace, now it is Azerbaijan's turn – MEP

German Member of the European Parliament and Co-Chair of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly Sergey Lagodinsky believes that the Armenian government is committed to achieving peace in the South Caucasus.

In an interview with  Armenpress correspondent in Brussels, the MEP expressed hope that Azerbaijan will follow the same path and that the conflict will be resolved peacefully.

In the interview, Lagodinsky also discussed the current role and influence of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, its significance, his recent visit to Armenia, the process of normalizing Armenia-Turkey relations, and the political situation in Turkey following the self-dissolution of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party.

-Let's talk a bit about Euronest. How would you assess the current relevance and impact of Euronest in today's geopolitical context, especially considering the clear shifts in Eastern Partnership dynamics?

-Well, look, for me, it was a priority during this term to focus on this region because I think the countries assembled under Euronest not only share a common historical past — despite all the differences — but they also all come from the post-Soviet space, with a difficult history and complex relations with Russia. These countries also share a common present, which means a very difficult strategic regional context where they are at different speeds and have different desires about how to democratize and whether to orient themselves towards Brussels. Some, like Azerbaijan, for example, say they have a different path. But we need to work with those countries, and we also have a unique platform where many of them can talk to each other. This doesn’t happen very often in this particular constellation. We provide a European platform to discuss our common issues, and I think this is unique. I respect that many of these countries have different choices and paths towards their future.

-How can Euronest remain an effective platform for dialogue when some Member States,  like Azerbaijan, have distanced themselves from its framework, and Belarus is also well-known in this regard? How do you keep the platform effective?

-Absolutely. You always have access to society or political elites, and decision-makers. Belarus is formally not part of this parliamentary exchange now, but we — and I personally — are in very close contact with the Belarusian opposition, with Madam Tikhonova, President Tikhonova, and with the Coordination Committee. For them, this is also a unique opportunity to discuss issues with their colleagues. If we talk about Georgia, this has become a difficult relationship for our Parliament as well. But even there, this platform is not just for Europeans; it is also for discussing issues between Georgians and Armenians, between Georgians and Ukrainians, and with plenty of issues and topics to discuss. I hope this will continue. As I said, we are using the platform to bring like-minded people together. This is a platform of diversity, and if we want political diversity, this is perfect.

-Diversity is a kind of richness, but it also brings many obstacles, problems, and challenges. What are the main challenges in your analysis today?

-I think the main challenge is precisely to conceptualize and understand that we don’t have to be alike. We don’t have to aspire to the same thing beyond respect for human life, freedom, peace, stability, and borders. I’m very pleased to announce that at our next Parliamentary Assembly — where all five parliaments will be present, and hopefully also our Belarusian friends, and maybe others interested in the conversation — this will be a large parliamentary assembly next year. This is a huge and important signal for the role Armenia is playing in the region and for Armenia’s outlook for the future.

-Exactly, you recently visited Armenia. What were your key impressions from that trip, both politically and in terms of civil society engagement? I believe it was your first visit?

-It was my first visit to Armenia. I always say I grew up with many Armenian friends and family friends. My father was one of the doctors who helped [in Vanadzor] after the Spitak earthquake — at that time it was called Kirovakan, the old name. So, for me, it was a bit like a homecoming. I was very impressed by the political leadership and the courageous decisions they are currently making, but also by the strong civil society that is driving the political agenda. This is a great and unique opportunity. From that perspective, it was very impressive. I met with the President of Armenia, with my colleagues from the Parliament, including Maria Karapetyan, my counterpart and chair of the delegation to Euronest. I also met Marcus Ritter, head of the EU Monitoring Mission, who is observing the situation on the border. This was a very interesting and important discussion.

I also visited the TUMO Center for Innovation in Yerevan, which was one of the most surprising experiences for me. There were so many young people learning about AI, digital regulation, coding, and innovation — it’s a huge forward-looking center, spreading influence throughout Europe and the world. This showed me the future — the future is about innovation, curiosity, and young people doing things that unite us and bring peace.

-Talking about peace, how do you assess the current state of Armenia–Azerbaijan negotiations? What are the main risks and opportunities at this stage of the peace process?

-We have to recognize that the Armenian government and the Prime Minister are fully committed to a peaceful solution. I know about the grievances on both sides throughout history. During the past decades, Armenia, with its allies or former allies, sometimes had the upper hand in the conflict. But the initiatives taken by this government go to the outer limits of what a democracy is ready to do to achieve peace. We have to acknowledge and support this process, and we hope our Azeri partners will also take steps to bring this conflict to a peaceful conclusion. I very much hope both sides can be encouraged to do this. The decisions by Prime Minister Pashinyan and his team are extremely courageous and forward-looking. They have recognized that peace can only be achieved by making difficult steps forward, even if it hurts. They have made enough steps; now we need steps from the other side.

-Another issue directly or indirectly linked to the situation is Turkey. You know this country well from your past term. There is an ongoing normalization process between Armenia and Turkey. What role should the EU play in supporting this dialogue?

I have always said — and my colleagues in the Commission say this too — that we need to encourage this because normalization between Turkey and Armenia would address not only the current strategic situation but also the very painful, traumatizing history between the two countries. I believe it is possible to find a new common basis in the current situation. From discussions with my Turkish counterparts, I know they are interested in going down this path. I hope our partners in Baku also give positive signs to Ankara because it is in everyone’s interest, and certainly in the European Union’s interest, if the Armenian border would finally be open and accessible. This is a strategic vector. Our relationship with Turkey is not easy either. My colleagues in Ankara know I have always been outspoken about democratic deficits there.

Currently, with Imamoglu, the mayor of Istanbul, the main opposition party is under huge authoritarian pressure that we have not seen before. At the same time, there is a process of normalization regarding the so-called Kurdish question. This issue involves a huge wound and trauma in Turkey. I look at this positively and think we may have a chance to normalize relations or at least open the border between Turkey and Armenia. This is needed geopolitically and would strengthen the European relationship with Armenia.

-And last but not least, since you mentioned the Kurdish issue: How is the PKK’s disarmament perceived at the European level and in this Parliament?

-Our position is very clear: in most countries, the PKK is considered a terrorist organization. That’s why we always differentiate between PKK actions and the legitimate issues of Kurdish parties, like the former HDP, with whom my party, the Greens, has had a good, constructive relationship. I hope this normalization of political relations with Kurdish partners — not the PKK, but other Kurdish parties — will not mean politically subjugating the Kurdish political forces and turning them into uncritical allies on domestic issues for Mr. Erdogan. There are many open questions and problems domestically. The role HDP played in internal dynamics was important. It would be a pity if their critical, pro-democratic, progressive approach is dropped. At the same time, this is an opportunity to normalize this approach. Let’s see where this goes. I wish Kurdish activists and former HDP members, now called differently, a lot of energy to sustain their efforts and remain true to their values and convictions.

-Thank you for accepting our invitation, Mr. Lagodinsky.

-Thank you.