After today’s press conference by the Prime Minister, where he provided clarifications regarding the essence of the American approach to unblocking regional transport communications, the Armenian expert community has intensified efforts to make sense of the developments. Despite the apparent transparency, many questions remain about the details of the proposed model. What exactly is the U.S. proposing? Is it a compromise in the region’s interests, or, conversely, a model that poses risks to Armenia’s sovereignty? These and other aspects have become the subject of discussion among political scientists, economists, and representatives of diplomatic circles, who are trying to understand what truly lies behind the initiative presented as an “investment approach.”
The American Scenario is Already Being Implemented
According to political scientist Arman Grigoryan, the Armenian side has not only expressed readiness to implement the transport communications unblocking project under the so-called American scenario but is already moving toward the stage of direct implementation. “In my view, the decision has already been made, and the position that the Armenian side has been trying to promote for many years has undergone changes,” he noted. According to the expert, the Armenian authorities have de facto agreed to a certain “corridor” model that implies a partial limitation of state sovereignty over the relevant territory. At the same time, Grigoryan emphasizes that the “private company” announced by the Prime Minister, which, according to him, will be tasked with managing the communications, is likely to only formally represent the private sector. “In reality, it will be a structure deeply tied to the U.S. government and operating within the logic of Washington’s geopolitical interests,” he believes. Grigoryan considers it naive to believe that the project—whether called the “Crossroads of Peace” or the “Zangezur Corridor”—will serve purely communicative or economic functions. In reality, he is convinced, it is about a larger task, within which the created mechanism will become a tool for pushing Russia out of the South Caucasus.
Full Unblocking of Communications Without Loss of Sovereignty
Political scientist Narek Minasyan, in turn, notes: “The plan involves unblocking all transport communications, including those connecting Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan. Within this process, the possibility of involving, or perhaps even establishing, a joint Armenian-American company is being considered, which would handle attracting investments for infrastructure construction and, subsequently, its management and provision of various services. But the most important thing is that, as stated, all this must take place within the framework of Armenia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.” According to the expert, he sees no immediate threats to the loss of sovereignty in the announced parts of the proposals. However, despite the stated principles, Minasyan doubts that the parties are close to a final agreement. “It is obvious that the main topic of discussions in Abu Dhabi was the unblocking of communications, but it seems that the parties have not yet reached a common denominator. My impression is that the coordination of individual details is still ongoing,” he added.
Outsourcing Services is a Management Tool, but Outsourcing a “Corridor” is a Territorial Concession
According to former Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan:
“At today’s press conference, Nikol Pashinyan compared the idea of providing a ‘corridor’ to a third party through Armenia’s sovereign territory to outsourcing national infrastructure—for example, an airport, railway, or postal service. This comparison is absurd, misleading, and dangerous.
Firstly, transferring the management of an airport or postal service is a commercial agreement under which national jurisdiction is fully preserved. The Republic of Armenia continues to exercise its sovereignty over the land, airspace, and legal system. These are standard models of public-private partnerships used worldwide for development, modernization, and efficiency improvement—while fully maintaining national control.
In contrast, the ‘corridor’ concept demanded by Azerbaijan and often echoed by external forces implies something entirely different: the extraterritoriality of Armenian lands. This means a section of sovereign territory removed from Armenia’s legal, administrative, and security control and effectively or legally transferred to another entity. This is not a commercial transaction—it is a concession of sovereignty.
The difference is simple but fundamental: outsourcing services is a management tool, while ‘outsourcing a corridor’ is a territorial concession.
Pashinyan’s rhetorical substitution blurs this line, misleads the public, and dangerously lowers the threshold for readiness to make future concessions. Presenting the transfer of jurisdiction over a transit route as equivalent to granting a concession for the operation of Zvartnots Airport is to confuse service leasing with relinquishing a border.
If this comparison were appropriate, any colonial concession agreement in history could be called modernization. But history suggests otherwise. Territorial sovereignty is not a management contract but the foundation of statehood.
Nikol Pashinyan’s proposal to transfer control over a corridor through Syunik to a third party—allegedly to ensure unimpeded communication between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan—jeopardizes Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
A corridor under the control of a third party, regardless of who manages it, will create a dangerous precedent. It will effectively sever a section of Armenian territory, subordinating national sovereignty to the right of transit of a state that not only does not renounce violence but systematically threatens Armenia’s security and viability.
Such a corridor—even if formally managed by ‘neutral’ forces—will, in reality, become a tool for Azerbaijani expansion.”
Not Direct U.S. Capital Participation, but the Implementation of an Armenian-American Initiative
According to expert Areg Kochinyan, the essence of the American proposals lies not so much in the direct participation of American capital but in the implementation of an Armenian-American initiative. “It is about a private company that will receive the right to build communications on specific land plots. These could be highways, railways, gas pipelines, and other infrastructure facilities. At the same time, the company will not have ownership rights over these plots, let alone any change in the international status of these territories,” the expert emphasizes.
He explains that the project consists of several components: first, construction, then the operation of communications, and finally, ensuring their security, for which a private security structure will be responsible. However, according to him, this does not mean that Armenia’s special services or law enforcement agencies will be restricted in their work in these zones. “Moreover, neither customs nor border control will be transferred to any third-party structures. These functions remain exclusively with the Armenian state, and this is not even up for debate,” Kochinyan noted. He also added that if there is to be talk of risks to sovereignty, they are more related to the 9th point of the 2020 Trilateral Statement and how it was interpreted by the Russian side, rather than the current American proposals.