The agenda of the meeting between the Prime Minister of Armenia and the President of Azerbaijan in Abu Dhabi is expected to focus on the issue of the so-called “Zangezur Corridor.” This perspective is shared by expert Grigory Airapetyan.
According to him, international attention to the Syunik direction has sharply increased in recent months. He attributes this to the fact that the corridor project is no longer perceived as a purely regional issue but has become a tool for influencing the balance of power between the West, Russia, Iran, and Turkey.
Airapetyan considers a recent publication by the Carnegie analytical center to be no coincidence, as it discussed U.S. plans to take the initiative in resolving Armenian-Azerbaijani communication disputes. Specifically, the article mentioned an idea previously proposed by the EU—transferring the management of the corridor to an independent foreign company. According to Carnegie’s sources, the U.S. is ready to implement a model based on the participation of a private American firm operating under Washington’s political umbrella.
Airapetyan emphasizes that, judging by earlier statements, Armenian authorities do not have strong conceptual objections to such a model. According to the expert, the Armenian Prime Minister has previously acknowledged the possibility of transferring corridor management to a “private security company,” which can de facto be seen as agreement to the U.S.-proposed format.
However, as Airapetyan points out, the key issue is not logistics but the geopolitical consequences. Agreeing to implement the American model in a region where Russia maintains a military presence inevitably creates a configuration of competing influences.
“There are no established examples in international practice where a country with Russian military and border guard presence simultaneously hands over control of strategic communications to entities associated with NATO. This is not just a logistical decision; it is a political statement about redirecting foreign policy,” he explains.
From this perspective, the Syunik Corridor becomes not merely a transport artery but an indicator of choice—between allied obligations, strategic neutrality, and a new formula for foreign policy positioning.
According to Airapetyan, agreeing to the U.S.-proposed model carries both potential benefits and serious risks. On one hand, it could bring investments, international guarantees, and reduce regional tensions. On the other, it could heighten tensions in the region due to the positions of Russia and Iran, which may perceive such a move as a directe threat to their interests.