The South Caucasus has lengthy been a geopolitical fault line caught between Russia, Iran, and Turkey, scarred by many years of confrontation and battle between not simply Armenia and Azerbaijan, but in addition Russia and Georgia, which fought a struggle in 2008. Armenia’s conventional reliance on Russia for safety and commerce has been shaken by Moscow’s ambivalent stance throughout the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh struggle, the following Azeri takeover of the area in 2023, and by disruptions in important provide routes linked to Iran and Georgia. These occasions, in flip, have pushed Yerevan in the direction of the West, culminating in a U.S.-facilitated memorandum with Baku on 8 August.
Envisioned as a part of a wider Central Asian-European commerce route, the central pillar of the deal is a 43-kilometer-long passage — to be collectively administered by Armenia and the USA and referred to as the Trump Hall for Worldwide Peace and Prosperity — by means of Armenia to the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhchivan. Nevertheless, whereas the deal is already being hailed in Washington as a significant breakthrough, its success primarily hinges on Armenia overcoming deep home political divisions, institutional distrust, and constitutional hurdles that would derail a remaining peace treaty. All of those might kill the deal within the cradle.
Whether it is profitable, nonetheless, the advantages are appreciable. It might realign the South Caucasus by weakening Russian affect, opening new commerce routes, and deepening Western engagement with, and due to this fact affect in, the area — all with out a single shot being fired or placing boots on the bottom. However it will solely matter if Armenia can navigate its inner political turmoil and constitutional reform with out the method collapsing.
Because it stands, the present deal delivers comparatively much less for Armenia than it does for Azerbaijan. This asymmetry, in flip, would seemingly gasoline Armenian resentment, dominate its subsequent elections, and expose Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to accusations of capitulation. Policymakers in each Washington and Brussels, due to this fact, must complement diplomatic facilitation with tangible incentives for Armenia, together with direct financial assist and visual funding in Armenia’s sovereignty. With out such balancing measures, the memorandum dangers being branded domestically as a coerced concession, undermining Armenia’s management and making ratification politically troublesome.
Geopolitical Context and the Stakes for Armenia
Armenia’s geopolitical recalibration has been pushed by a confluence of regional upheavals. Historically encircled by closed borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan, reliant on Russian safety ensures, and economically tethered to Moscow-controlled routes, Armenia now faces new challenges. The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh struggle and subsequent Azerbaijani advances uncovered Russia’s unreliable position as guarantor, spurring a cautious pivot in the direction of Western companions and the European Union. Cooperation with the European Union monitoring mission and discuss of E.U. accession signaled a need to each entry Western markets, funding, and infrastructure, and concurrently cut back reliance on Russian-controlled routes by recasting Armenia as a bridge between East and West.
This pivot was additional accelerated by acute commerce disruptions since Could. The Israeli-Iranian battle lower Armenia’s Bandar Abbas lifeline, severing as much as a 3rd of its imports. Georgia, Yerevan’s solely different non-hostile transit route, has turn into more and more unpredictable with sudden customs checks and restrictions on key imports seemingly influenced by Russian stress. For its half, Moscow has countered Armenia’s westward tilt by cultivating pro-Russian political actors forward of the 2026 elections, exploiting native financial dependencies by means of selective commerce restrictions, and leveraging public discontent to undermine Pashinyan’s coverage path.
Business and Strategic Promise If Political Stability Holds
In opposition to this backdrop, the U.S.-brokered memorandum might redefine energy dynamics by lowering Russian and Iranian affect, integrating Azerbaijan extra intently into Western financial networks, and lengthening NATO’s strategic footprint, though the potential danger of intra-NATO tensions over any potential enhanced position for Turkey throughout the alliance ought to not be ignored. For Washington, the stakes contain displacing Russia as Armenia’s dominant energy dealer and reinforcing the Center Hall as a vital Eurasian commerce artery.
The memorandum might additionally unlock unprecedented financial alternatives by diversifying Armenia’s commerce routes and attracting Western infrastructure funding. European vitality safety may benefit, although this additionally dangers deepening E.U. dependence on U.S. management — a pattern Brussels is searching for to scale back somewhat than speed up.
Nevertheless, the strategic and financial guarantees rely closely on Armenia’s home political stability. Russian and Iranian interference stays a looming risk, probably disrupting logistics and undermining investor confidence. Most critically, inner opposition to perceived concessions in the direction of Azerbaijan might stall or unravel implementation. For exterior actors, commitments to regional connectivity will carry little credibility except paired with significant steps to stabilize Armenia’s home politics and make sure that Yerevan derives tangible advantages from the proposed route on equal footing with Baku.
This issues for a variety of causes. For one, Russia is prone to replicate the methods it has deployed in different components of its so-called close to overseas — discreetly backing pro-Moscow candidates whereas concealing its position — in an effort to weaken Pashinyan. Equally essential, the hall itself stays extremely unsure. With out rigorously designed plans and ample monetary backing to hyperlink Armenia to world markets and ship tangible financial good points, its operation will primarily serve Baku, enabling it to maneuver each items and troops. This dynamic wouldn’t solely give Moscow, and probably Tehran, new alternatives to run affect campaigns inside Armenia, however might additionally embolden pro-Russian figures and hardline nationalists to deal with the passage as a software of leverage of their dealings with Azerbaijan — that’s, emphasizing its strategic and geopolitical utility somewhat than specializing in its financial position.
Home Political Fault Strains and Institutional Challenges
The political surroundings in Armenia at this time is marked by heightened political polarization, institutional reshaping, and social unrest potential. Within the current previous, the federal government has taken decisive steps to dismantle or neutralize actors it views as obstacles to its coverage agenda. This has included the arrest of senior opposition members of parliament and the detention of distinguished spiritual and enterprise figures similar to Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan and Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetian. These measures have deepened tensions with the Armenian Apostolic Church and intensified accusations from opposition events of political persecution.
The consolidation of govt authority has additionally been prolonged into the safety sector, with modifications in police management and the appointment of figures seen as politically aligned with the ruling occasion. Whereas this may occasionally enhance the federal government’s short-term management over potential flashpoints, it additionally dangers politicizing establishments that might be chargeable for safeguarding delicate features of the peace deal, together with border administration. If safety forces come to be considered partisan devices, this notion can erode the willingness of native authorities and communities to interact with them, thereby undermining cooperation in areas vital to the peace settlement’s sustainability. In the meantime, the preliminary home reactions have been marked by skepticism, with criticism coming from throughout the political spectrum and diaspora-linked advocacy teams. Whereas the federal government has framed the deal as a stabilizing step with the potential to unlock Western funding and infrastructure integration, critics, similar to Tigran Abrahamian, a senior lawmaker from the opposition Pativ Unem, argue the settlement favors Azerbaijan, presents no tangible advantages to Armenia, and neglects humanitarian points similar to prisoner releases. Equally, the 2 largest opposition factions within the parliament, Hayastan and the Republican Occasion of Armenia, have dismissed the deal as an try to “legitimize the ethnic cleaning” of ethnic Armenians and “the fabricated trials” of political and spiritual figures. Diaspora advocacy teams, together with the Armenian Nationwide Committee of America, echo these considerations.
The Constitutional Reform Litmus Take a look at
A pivotal problem lies in Armenia’s constitutional reform course of. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has explicitly linked the peace treaty’s signing to modifications in Armenia’s structure — particularly, eradicating references to Armenia’s 1990 independence declaration and the 1989 Nagorno-Karabakh unification act. This requires a referendum to undertake a brand new structure.
How this course of unfolds might be a key indicator of the peace settlement’s viability. A profitable referendum might unlock formal peace and regional stability. Conversely, delays, political wrangling, or public rejection might indefinitely stall the deal, hardening positions and risking renewed battle.
Below Armenian regulation, constitutional amendments of this scale can’t be handed solely by the parliament. As an alternative, they require a two-step course of: approval of a draft by a certified majority within the Nationwide Meeting, adopted by ratification by means of a nationwide referendum. Crucially, the referendum is topic to turnout thresholds and supermajority guidelines, which means that any organized boycott by opposition events or the highly effective Armenian Apostolic Church might invalidate the method. These a number of institutional hurdles rework Aliyev’s demand into one of the vital politically fraught processes in Armenia’s current historical past.
Critics would possibly object that this framing exaggerates the constitutional hurdle because the Constitutional Courtroom of Armenia has clarified that treaties take priority over prior laws, and the structure doesn’t explicitly reference Karabakh. The Washington textual content itself additionally stipulates that it’s going to override home regulation. In strictly authorized phrases, that’s right. But the impediment is basically political, not authorized. Azerbaijan has made constitutional reform a precondition, Yerevan has dedicated to it in precept, and the demand is deeply unpopular amongst Armenians. Thus, the referendum turns into a vital juncture not due to authorized procedures or necessities, however as a result of the politics surrounding it would decide whether or not the settlement can endure.
In the meantime, the political dangers are magnified by Armenia’s unstable home scene. Pashinyan’s reputation is declining, and the emergence of a brand new opposition bloc led by the jailed Karapetian has created a possible rallying level for disillusioned voters. This bloc might place itself to seize the massive, undecided voters alienated from each the federal government and conventional opposition. On the identical time, frequent street-level unrest, such because the current protest in Lori, illustrates how socioeconomic grievances might fuse with political polarization. For a lot of Armenians, the U.S.-brokered peace talks are already seen as undermining sovereignty, and opponents are prone to model constitutional change as coerced reform, deepening polarization forward of the 2026 elections. On this surroundings, even procedural setbacks, similar to low turnout or parliamentary impasse, might derail the peace treaty and reignite confrontation with Azerbaijan.
Nonetheless, skeptics might argue that such home dangers are overstated. In spite of everything, Pashinyan convincingly received elections even after the 2020 defeat, and lots of Armenians might finally view the peace deal as a political win. But circumstances at this time are markedly much less favorable for him. His reputation has slumped resulting from a confluence of things, together with governance fatigue, unpopular financial measures, and a visual flip in the direction of a much less democratic model of governance, evident in his erratic assaults on opposition and church figures. Furthermore, the church and opposition are positioning themselves as defenders of ethnic Armenian rights and prisoners nonetheless held in Baku, framing the deal as an abandonment of those causes. Because of this, the political headwinds Pashinyan faces are a lot steeper at this time in comparison with the early 2020s, making home consolidation way more cumbersome.
And but, Pashinyan could possibly push reform by means of. He has already demonstrated his willingness to consolidate govt management by reshaping the safety sector, sidelining opponents, and weakening rival establishments. If he maintains this trajectory, he might overcome institutional veto factors and engineer constitutional change in favor of a peace treaty. Nevertheless, this path carries a value: the erosion of Armenia’s already imperfect democratic checks and balances. Europeans particularly should due to this fact put together for a troublesome compromise. Supporting Pashinyan too strongly might danger democratic backsliding, whereas failing to again him dangers the collapse of the peace course of and the emergence of a pro-Russia faction to energy — a prospect that some analysts have labeled as Ivanishvili 2.0. In apply, Western policymakers might want to steadiness their strategic aim of securing South Caucasian stability with their long-term dedication to Armenian democracy — a trade-off that can turn into unavoidable as reform strikes ahead.
An Uneven Deal and Exterior Dangers
Whereas a lot consideration has been positioned on Armenia’s home hurdles, it will, admittedly, be deceptive to assign all duty for the settlement’s fragility to Yerevan. Azerbaijan retains the capability to derail the method, having beforehand hooked up new circumstances and persevering with to develop its army capabilities. As well as, the USA might in some unspecified time in the future deprioritize the Caucasus, both resulting from a scarcity of curiosity or as a part of a broader strategic cut price with Moscow. Nevertheless, these contingencies appear unlikely. If Washington meant to easily “hand over” the area to Russia, it will not have invested so closely in brokering this memorandum. For its half, Baku has already secured vital concessions — together with U.S. recognition of a hall absent a peace treaty and the prospect of lifting Part 907 of the Freedom Help Act, which restricts arms gross sales to Azerbaijan. These good points create robust incentives for Baku to consolidate the deal somewhat than danger renewed instability.
That stated, it’s cheap to say that the memorandum shouldn’t be evenly balanced. Armenia has secured neither open borders with Turkey nor substantial new funding past pledges already made on the finish of the Biden administration. It’s true that President Donald Trump’s reaffirmation of those commitments carries weight, particularly given his administration’s unpredictability, however this doesn’t change the truth that Armenia, not like Azerbaijan, has not extracted any new ensures — monetary, political, or in any other case — from the present association.
A Fragile Path Ahead
The U.S.-mediated memorandum indicators a strategic breakthrough within the South Caucasus, promising to reshape regional alignments and weaken Russian affect. A serious supply of danger to the settlement’s success lies in Armenia’s home political panorama — characterised by polarization, institutional mistrust, and contested narratives — which might severely complicate, if not totally undermine, its realization alongside different components similar to exterior interferences and broader geopolitical developments each throughout the area and additional afield. Whereas some preserve that U.S. disengagement or Azeri opportunism might show equally decisive, probably the most fast and unpredictable problem nonetheless lies in Armenia’s personal potential to handle its constitutional politics and polarized society. The approaching months, significantly the constitutional reform course of, will reveal whether or not Armenia can surmount its home hurdles or if inner divisions will undermine a historic alternative for regional stability. The coverage and strategic implications for regional and world stakeholders are clear-cut: No one ought to deal with this memorandum as a accomplished deal.
Nima Khorrami is an analyst at NSSG International, a analysis affiliate on the Arctic Institute in Washington, D.C., and a former affiliate researcher on the OSCE Academy in Bishkek.
Picture: Press Service of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan through Wikimedia Commons
