The “Crossroads of Peace” initiative by the authorities is primarily viewed by international actors as a political and diplomatic symbol rather than a viable economic opportunity. This was stated by David Ananyan, former chairman of the State Revenue Committee.
According to him, from the perspective of economic feasibility, the initiative faces several serious limitations. He noted the evident constraint of Armenia’s transit potential.
“Armenia’s transit position, while strategically significant, is in practice largely symbolic. Within the framework of this initiative, the transit cargo flow through Armenia’s territory is unlikely to exceed 2–3 million tons per year, whereas Georgia already handles over 20 million tons, and Iran about 200 million tons,” Ananyan said.
Another reason is low profitability. According to Ananyan, revenues from transit, customs, and service fees at the indicated volumes could generate approximately $10–14 million annually. However, factoring in the costs of infrastructure maintenance, security, and labor, the net economic benefit is unlikely to exceed $3–5 million.
Furthermore, the initiative requires significant capital investment. According to preliminary technical estimates, the minimum investment threshold starts at $350–400 million, he noted. “This includes the restoration of lines, construction of customs checkpoints, bridges, and hubs. However, these costs do not yet account for political and security issues or additional factors,” the expert emphasized.
Ananyan reminded that Armenia will continue to lack direct access to maritime routes. “While it may theoretically seem possible to secure access through Turkey (Mersin, Dardze) or Azerbaijan (Alat), under current regional conditions, this remains unrealistic and hypothetical. In practice, Armenia will continue to depend on the ports of Georgia (Poti, Batumi) and Iran (Bandar Abbas),” he said.
All this leads to uncertainty regarding the return on investment, Ananyan continued. “Economic models show that the payback period for investments, at best, will exceed 50 years. Such a long-term horizon contradicts international standards for financing infrastructure projects,” he explained.
In Ananyan’s view, at this stage, the initiative primarily serves to shape Armenia’s foreign policy image. It is presented as a peacekeeping idea capable of attracting the attention of certain international centers. However, the weak economic prospects increase the risk that the initiative will remain one-sided in perception, failing to meet associated expectations.
“At the same time, there is a real risk related to Armenia’s loss of sovereign control over certain infrastructure, especially if transport communications are predominantly oriented toward Azerbaijan and Turkey,” he concluded.