Armenia is bracing for a potentially fateful turning point. According to media reports, a package of three documents may soon be signed in Washington. Armenia and Azerbaijan will sign an agreement on withdrawing from the OSCE Minsk Group, as well as a framework document formalizing the validity of 17 agreed-upon points of a peace treaty. Additionally, a document between Armenia and the U.S. will be signed, concerning the launch of a project aimed at unblocking communications.
Risks Without Alternatives
The joint statement by the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan on exiting the OSCE Minsk Group draws a line under an era in which three major powers—the U.S., France, and Russia—served as mediators. Armenia is making a political gesture, relinquishing one of its potential levers of diplomatic pressure. Moreover, the parties are effectively abandoning the existing format without proposing a stable alternative. As a result, if future agreements lack sufficient international guarantees, the risk of unilateral actions and new crises will inevitably grow.
TRIPP Could Become a Soft Form of Extraterritoriality
The second document, which involves the creation of TRIPP, appears balanced on the surface, at least based on what has been leaked to the media. It suggests preserving Armenian sovereignty while attracting significant investments and international interest. However, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details,” and those details could be varied and unexpected.
For instance, the document may include provisions for resolving disputes in international arbitrations—such as in London, Washington, or Paris—under Anglo-American law. This significantly limits Armenia’s legal ability to defend its interests. Arbitration decisions may not favor Yerevan, especially given that Armenia will be dealing with Washington. Moreover, Armenia could be drawn into costly and politically sensitive processes outside its jurisdiction, which in itself constitutes a form of sovereignty restriction.
While the agreement formally implies equal participation of Armenian and American companies, the fine print may include conditions favoring American contractors or imposing prohibitive entry requirements for Armenian companies (e.g., turnover, licenses, or standards). As a result, financial control and influence may remain in American hands, with Armenian participation being largely symbolic.
The provisions could impose financial obligations on Armenia, potentially straining the budget, increasing external debt, reducing tax revenues, or even leading to asset forfeiture in case of non-compliance. Even if the road is stated to be within Armenia’s sovereign territory, the details may include mechanisms limiting the access of Armenian authorities. For example, there could be provisions for creating a “special zone” where intervention by Armenian state structures requires the consent of a consortium. Formally, Armenian authorities would have access, but in practice, they would need permission, which could hypothetically be denied. This effectively introduces a soft form of extraterritoriality.
Furthermore, as noted earlier, the project fundamentally alters the balance of power in the region. It shifts the U.S. from an observer to an active participant in a strategically sensitive region. Armenia, in turn, becomes integrated into the U.S.’s political-economic sphere of influence, which carries several risks. First, this will inevitably provoke a strong reaction from Moscow and Tehran. Additionally, any change in U.S. administration could call into question the long-term commitments or the format of those commitments.
Formalizing Obligations with Many Unknowns
The third document, according to media reports, will be a framework agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, confirming their commitment to moving toward a full-fledged peace treaty. The text is said to formalize that 17 articles of the future agreement have already been agreed upon, and neither side can back out. On one hand, this signifies tangible progress in negotiations; on the other, without public information about the content of these articles, the question remains: on what exact terms is peace being achieved?
If this package of documents is indeed signed, it will symbolize tectonic shifts in regional politics. Armenia is distancing itself from old formats and, under Tehran’s nose, placing its bets on the U.S. While this may appear as a move toward a more stable development model, in reality, it will increase the country’s vulnerability.