Infrastructure and transport routes have always been not only economic but also important political factors. Major powers and empires have consistently sought to control key crossroads because they provided opportunities both to generate revenue and to exert influence over the region and countries beyond it. Economist Suren Parsyan said this.
According to him, in this context it is natural that today not only regional countries but also states outside the region have become increasingly active around projects aimed at restoring infrastructure in and around Armenia.
“Armenia should not remain on the sidelines, because this has not only an economic component — I repeat — but also an important security dimension. Armenia can become a transit country both North–South and East–West. It has that opportunity and that potential,” Parsyan said.
According to him, the main question is how Armenia will be able to use this potential and whether its infrastructure projects will attract the interest of countries both within and outside the region.
Parsyan stresses that approaching infrastructure solely from the perspective of Armenian interests is not sufficient. According to him, calculations must also take into account the economic and political interests of other countries, since economic logic does not always coincide with political logic.
TRIPP is only one of Armenia’s transit opportunities
Speaking about East–West freight transportation, Parsyan said Armenia could participate through several different routes.
One is the route envisaged under the TRIPP agreement signed on August 8. Under this arrangement, Armenia could become a transit country through the restoration of approximately 42–43 kilometers of railway in the Meghri area.
According to him, it was also envisaged that after Nakhchivan the railway would continue toward Yeraskh, then Gyumri and Kars. According to various estimates, the Baku–Meghri–Nakhchivan–Yerevan–Gyumri–Kars freight route would be approximately 930–950 kilometers long.
At the same time, the economist said the Turkish side plans to build the Kars–Nakhchivan railway, in which case only an approximately 42-kilometer section would remain within Armenia. Under that scenario, the freight route from Baku to Kars would be shortened by around 90 kilometers, to approximately 830–840 kilometers.
Armenia, however, has a shorter alternative East–West route — Baku–Gazakh–Ijevan–Gyumri–Kars — which, according to various estimates, could be around 720–730 kilometers long. According to Parsyan, fully utilizing this route would require restoration of the Simonovka–Vanadzor railway section.
“At this point, I must note that the Azerbaijani and Turkish sides are not interested in opening the railway through Gazakh, although they all acknowledge that it is the shortest option in the western direction,” Parsyan said.
According to him, the reason is political: Azerbaijan and Turkey want to ensure a stable, uninterrupted connection under the most favorable possible regime between Nakhchivan and the main territory of Azerbaijan.
Parsyan also notes that reopening the Yeraskh–Nakhchivan section is currently not at the center of discussions either. The main emphasis is on connecting Azerbaijan’s main territory with Nakhchivan through Meghri.
“Economic logic and political logic often do not coincide. If the issue were approached from an economic perspective, they should have preferred the shortest route, but there is a political component here,” he said.
Middle Corridor freight volumes may be overestimated
According to Parsyan, ensuring the Nakhchivan–Azerbaijan connection and developing the so-called Middle Corridor also play an important role in regional infrastructure. The corridor is expected to be used for transporting goods from Central Asia or China to Europe.
According to him, estimates of potential freight volumes along the Middle Corridor range from 15 million to 30 million tonnes. However, the economist believes these figures may be somewhat overstated.
He points out that China has long been expanding its infrastructure projects in the region. In particular, China has investments in Georgian infrastructure and has also allocated around $800 million for the construction of a port on the Caspian coast in Azerbaijan.
“I can confidently predict that China is primarily planning its freight transportation via the Azerbaijan–Georgia–Black Sea route,” Parsyan said.
According to him, the main direction for Chinese cargo will most likely be toward Black Sea ports, from where goods can be transported by sea, for example, to Bulgaria or Romania and then continue onward to Europe.
The economist notes that maritime freight transportation is considerably cheaper than rail or overland transportation. The same logic, he said, may also apply to Central Asian countries.
At the same time, Parsyan does not rule out the parallel existence of different routes, emphasizing that maintaining alternatives is an important principle of Chinese policy.
Armenia may also benefit from exporting its own goods
According to Parsyan, Armenia’s interests should not be tied exclusively to large international freight flows. Even with limited cargo volumes, Armenia can benefit from newly opened infrastructure.
As an example, he points to exports from Armenia’s mining industry.
“Even with a small flow of cargo, Armenia can obtain a share of the benefits because, if TRIPP becomes operational, Armenia could use that route, for example, to export its mineral resources,” he said.
According to Parsyan, mining companies operating in Syunik with Russian capital could particularly benefit from this opportunity, since TRIPP could provide a shorter route for their cargo to reach China.
He noted that in recent years around 70% of Armenia’s copper concentrate exports have gone to China, while a significant share of mineral exports — around 56% — has been transported through Georgia.
In this context, Parsyan said it is important for Armenia not only to benefit from global transit projects but also to assess the local economic gains they can generate.
TRIPP should be used to open Armenia’s borders
According to Parsyan, Armenia should focus not only on securing a share of freight flows but also on increasing its overall attractiveness as a transit country.
To achieve this, he said, Armenia needs to reconstruct its roads and infrastructure and bring them up to international standards, allowing all countries in the region to use Armenian territory.
“This is not only about TRIPP. If, for example, we want to establish long-term peace and stability in the region, not only the TRIPP route but also other routes should be open — both for Azerbaijan and Turkey,” he said.
The economist emphasized the importance of developing all infrastructure along both the North–South and East–West directions.
According to him, over the past decade Georgia has revised freight tariffs through its territory several times, increasing costs for Armenia as well as Turkey and Azerbaijan. The availability of alternative routes through Armenia, Parsyan believes, could significantly weaken Georgia’s dominant position in East–West freight transportation.
Under these conditions, Armenia could also offer Azerbaijani and Turkish freight carriers a more flexible tariff policy for transporting goods through Armenian territory.
According to Parsyan, this does not require all freight to move specifically along the TRIPP route. He cited the Gyumri–Kars railway and the Margara Bridge as examples.
“TRIPP should be used to open our borders. You may not gain major benefits directly from TRIPP, but you will gain much more from opening the borders and creating alternatives. This is the perspective from which we should approach the issue,” the economist concluded.