Recent U.S.-mediated agreement sets the stage for the end of Armenia as a sovereign state.
The recent signing of a “peace agreement” between Armenia and Azerbaijan, brokered by the United States, marks not only a new chapter in the Caucasus conflict but, above all, represents yet another historical humiliation for the Armenian people. More than a diplomatic defeat, the pact symbolizes the collapse of Armenian sovereignty and confirms its ongoing march toward extinction as a viable and independent state.
The so-called “Zangezur Corridor,” officially ratified in Washington with great fanfare by the Trump administration, is a land route connecting Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhichevan through the southern part of Armenian territory. Technically, it is a logistical corridor. Politically and geostrategically, it is the imposition of an external order in defiance of the Armenian people’s will—an assault on the country’s territorial integrity and another step toward its total submission to the Atlanticist West.
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, by accepting the terms imposed by Washington and Baku, has demonstrated not only weakness but complete capitulation. His government, already marked by a string of failures—including the humiliating military defeat in Nagorno-Karabakh and the alienation of traditional allies like Russia and Iran—is now handing over yet another vital piece of national territory to the mercy of foreign powers. The so-called “peace” promoted under the name “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” is nothing more than a cynical euphemism for military and economic occupation.
It’s important to underline that, even from a cold and pragmatic geopolitical perspective, the current scenario benefits everyone—except Armenia. Azerbaijan secures uninterrupted logistical access to Nakhichevan; the U.S. consolidates a direct military presence in the Caucasus under the guise of managing the route; Israel strengthens its partnership with Baku, further threatening Iranian security; and NATO, indirectly, expands its reach into one of the most strategic regions of Eurasia. Armenia, meanwhile, loses territory, displaces historical communities, and cements its international irrelevance.
Pashinyan’s irresponsibility also breaks with a longstanding diplomatic tradition crucial to regional stability. By sidelining Russia and Iran—regional powers historically committed to peace and balance in the Caucasus—Yerevan is trading real security for empty Western promises. Moscow, though momentarily focused on the Ukrainian front, remains the only actor capable of ensuring Armenia’s survival as a state. Tehran, on the other hand, views the corridor as an existential threat—not only due to its proximity to Iranian borders but also because of the growing Israeli and American presence it brings.
The refusal to pursue genuine peace under the mediation of regional actors reveals Pashinyan’s total alienation, as he seems to govern with his eyes fixed on Paris and Washington, while turning his back to the harsh reality faced by the Armenian people. His “Westernization” project has utterly failed: the promise of prosperity turned into isolation, and the European dream became a geopolitical nightmare.
The grim truth is that under Pashinyan’s leadership, Armenia is ceasing to exist as a sovereign political entity. The state is being territorially fragmented, economically occupied, and politically manipulated. The Armenian people—heirs to one of the world’s oldest Christian civilizations—are now hostages to a puppet government that insists on choosing yesterday’s enemies as today’s allies.
What remains for Armenia is to decide: will it continue its blind march toward total extinction, or will it awaken from its lethargy, remove the traitors who currently rule, and rebuild its sovereignty based on a genuine alliance with those who truly defend regional peace—rather than those seeking to replace it with NATO military bases?
And it must also be understood that any lasting peace in the region will only be achievable through negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan mediated by the three relevant regional actors: Russia, Iran, and Turkey—not by faraway powers like the U.S. and France.
Without a profound strategic shift, Armenia’s fate is already sealed: it will become a puppet state, without territory, without a people, and without a future.
Trump’s Armenia-Azerbaijan agreement advanced peace, but Washington can’t let up nowBy Ambassador Robert Cekuta and Ambassador Richard Morningstar - August 13, 2025 [Atlantic Council]The joint peace declaration signed at the White House on August 8 by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is a major step toward advancing stability, peace, and prosperity in the Caucasus and Central Asia. US involvement played a major role leading up to the signing, and Washington’s continued involvement will be necessary for the successful ratification and implementation of the agreement.
There are also important geopolitical implications. The meeting and declaration sent needed signals to Russia, Iran, and other regional players. The United States is now in a position to play a critical role in the South Caucasus to help develop the region economically, oversee the proposed transit corridor, and to counter any malign third-party influence in the region.
Importantly, Turkey can now serve as a buffer and deterrent against any unhelpful interference in the region. The events of this past week demonstrate a policy shift that we had pushed for during our time serving as US ambassadors to Azerbaijan—no longer treating the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict as an issue that can only be managed, but one that can be resolved.
The joint declaration, however, is not a final peace agreement. It does not in itself completely end the conflict that turned into open warfare between the two former Soviet republics during the final days of the Soviet Union. The Washington joint declaration’s first paragraph, however, notes that US President Donald Trump and the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders “witnessed the initialing of . . . the agreement on establishment of peace and inter-state relations” between the two countries and acknowledges the need “for further actions to achieve the signing and ultimate ratification of the agreement, and emphasized the importance of maintaining and strengthening peace between our two countries.” The declaration contains many positive and constructive provisions, which, if successfully implemented, will create a lasting peace in the region. The United States must continue to play a major role in insuring that all necessary steps are taken.
The Washington meeting also envisioned another step to help realize the long-overdue peace: the need to enable road, rail, and possibly oil and gas pipeline connections across Armenia’s Syunik region in the country’s south to link mainland Azerbaijan with its Nakhichevan exclave. The declaration “reaffirm[s] the importance of the opening of communications between the two countries . . . on the basis of respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and jurisdiction of the states.” It continues: “These efforts must include unimpeded connectivity between the main part of the Republic of Azerbaijan and its Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic through the territory of the Republic of Armenia with reciprocal benefits for international and intra-state connectivity for the Republic of Armenia.”
The declaration then goes on to say that:Armenia will work with the United States of America and mutually determined third parties, to set forth a framework for the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) connectivity project in the territory of the Republic of Armenia. We confirm our determination to pursue efforts in good faith to achieve this goal in the most expeditious manner.
This provision highlights a key factor: For the declaration to work and to have the peacebuilding result the administration wants, Washington must stay committed and remain actively and visibly engaged. The declaration reportedly envisions private-sector US engagement in building and maintaining new roads across the twenty-seven-mile stretch of Armenia’s Syunik province as well as a new, modern rail link, and possibly new oil and natural gas pipelines. The idea is that these links will connect not just the territory of Azerbaijan and Armenia, but also form links connecting Turkey and the rest of Europe with Central Asia and perhaps China and South Asia as well.
But wishes and verbal declarations are not enough. Next, the White House should instruct, empower, and deploy officials from the State Department, the Commerce Department, the Development Finance Corporation, the Trade Development Agency, and probably others to work with the Armenian and Azerbaijani governments, companies in those countries, and US firms. Only with this kind of concerted engagement can the United States help make these transit communications, and the peace, security, and prosperity benefits they can bring, a reality.
Moreover, the State Department and other agencies should engage Turkey, Georgia, and the Central Asian states to ensure the new transport links realize their full commercial and geopolitical potential, including as a counter to China’s regional ambitions. Both of us know well the work that we, our embassies, and the relevant offices in Washington did together to realize energy pipelines in the South Caucasus following the Soviet Union’s collapse. That work can be a model for this new chapter for the region.
Likewise, the United States should help Armenians and Azerbaijanis take other necessary steps to realize a real, lasting peace. This work should include actively engaging Azerbaijanis and Armenians to build personnel connections and promote understanding after nearly four decades of hostility. Again, the US government has in the past created and implemented programs throughout the world that successfully fought preconceptions, fostered better understanding among former enemies, and built lasting peace. The United States can—and must—do so again.
It must be acknowledged, however, that many of the experts who worked on such initiatives have been terminated and that much expertise was lost by recent cuts at the State Department, the US Agency for International Development, and elsewhere. It may still be possible to recall and deploy some of these experts to pursue the White House’s objectives in the region. Moreover, there are nongovernmental organizations, universities, and think tanks with proven records of success on the peacebuilding front that could contribute to these efforts as well.
The August 8 meetings and declaration were noteworthy and much-needed steps toward a lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But as necessary and praiseworthy as these steps were, history will judge them by what happens next. More needs to be done to bring lasting peace, stability, and prosperity to the region, and continued active US engagement is essential to successfully achieve this vision.