Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has stated that Armenia may revoke Russia’s concessionary management rights if certain railway sections are not restored within the agreed timeframe. In that case, the restoration work would be carried out using Armenia’s own resources.
The statement concerns the Gazakh–Ijevan, Akhuryan–Armenian-Turkish border, and Yeraskh–Nakhichevan railway sections. These routes have gained increased importance amid changes in regional railway schemes in the Caucasus. Political analyst Hakob Badalyan shared his assessment of the situation.
A move aimed at domestic politics
According to Badalyan, Pashinyan’s statement is largely driven by domestic political considerations. He views it as an attempt to project a firm stance in a pre-election environment.
At the same time, Badalyan notes that there are no signs of a negative reaction from the Russian side. There is also no indication that Moscow has taken a confrontational position regarding Armenia’s requests.
Russia as a logistics moderator
Badalyan argues that Russia is one of the key moderators of emerging regional railway logistics schemes. This, he says, is evident from a series of recent statements made by Russian officials.
He specifically referred to comments by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk. Overchuk stated that discussions are underway with Azerbaijan to increase and intensify railway cargo transportation toward Armenia.
Badalyan also recalled that pilot shipments have already taken place. These included grain deliveries from Russia to Armenia via Azerbaijan and Georgia.
Under these circumstances, he считает it unlikely that Russia would obstruct the restoration of the relevant railway sections. According to the analyst, Moscow has a direct interest in ensuring that these logistics routes function properly.
Concessions and regional routes
Badalyan emphasizes that concessionary management of Armenia’s railways only makes sense within a broader regional framework. This becomes viable if Armenia is integrated into new transit routes.
Otherwise, Armenia’s railway system remains a dead end with limited economic appeal. This is why, he argues, Russia is among the main beneficiaries of activating these schemes.
Competition with Georgia and Iran
Badalyan stresses that the ongoing processes are neither uniform nor straightforward. While they directly affect Armenia’s territory, they lack a single coherent logic.
As a result, competitive dynamics are inevitable. In such an environment, partners may also act as competitors.
He points out that Georgia presents itself as a stable and reliable route within the Middle Corridor. This positioning makes Georgia both a partner and a competitor to Armenia, potentially creating friction in bilateral relations.
A similar logic applies to Iran. Tehran will also assess regional railway schemes based on its own strategic interests.
The issue of Armenia’s subjectivity
According to Badalyan, the central issue is whether Armenia is an active political subject or merely a consumer of external decisions.
At present, he concludes, the evidence does not support Armenia’s subjectivity. Instead, Armenia appears focused on domestic messaging, while a coherent political strategy remains underdeveloped.