‘We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again’
British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, 1938, less than 2 years before the bombing of Great Britain by Germany
Well, Pashinyan, apparently, managed to prove to his Turkish masters that he would be their best governor. This was facilitated not only by the holy sacrifices of Artsakh, of the Declaration of Independence, of the memory of the Genocide and of the reputation of the Armenian Church, but also by the transparent exposition of the utter incapacity of all shades of the Turkish commandant’s ‘opposition’ in Armenia: from the old to the ‘new’. As an election gift, he has got what he long coveted: the wrapper of the ‘Zangezur corridor’ (even if not the most convincing), another agreement on a future ‘peace’ agreement, guarantees of personal security and a carte blanche for zealous political repression. With masters, who have not yet written him off as scrap, with frustrated populace that is intimidated by him, the freedom to punish any bearer of common sense, and passive, hypocritical and incompetent competitors – what else is needed for happiness and re-election of the Turkish commandant who is no less hypocritical and incompetent in everything – except selling out the Armenian future?
Of course, the Young Janissaries figured this was not enough, and in addition to odes to the guarantor of their mortgages, they sang about ‘sovereignty’ and ‘unblocking’ in the face of the prospect of losing access to Iran (the ‘Trump Route’) and Georgia (by handing over the important ‘enclaves’ according to Pashinyan’s new Bible – Soviet maps). Professional collaborationists manage to find things in the text of the memorandum signed by the United States, Armenia and Azerbaijan that are definitely not there and cannot be there.
We have already analysed the points of the planned ‘peace’ agreement, pointing out the asymmetry and impracticability of all positions where Azerbaijan and Armenia ‘commit’ to make ‘mutual concessions’. However, the new draft did not even include illusory carrots for Armenia, as it was done in the Trilateral Statement of 9 November 2020.
According to tradition, which we hope will soon become irrelevant, let us look at what we really have after 8 August 2025. Let us briefly describe the situation: we (a) abandon Syunik and (b) lose access to Iran, (c) renounce our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, (d) lose Section 907, (e) legitimise the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, (f) receive no guarantees for the release of our hostages in Baku and (g) no recognition of the right to return for the Armenians of Artsakh. The situation is catastrophic, but not the worst possible. It will mark only the beginning of fundamental changes and deprivations. This means that there is still a tiny chance to turn the game around – if we wake up and act differently, which we will discuss at the end of the article.
Initialling the peace agreement
In the first clause of the memorandum, Pashinyan and Aliyev agreed to ‘continue to negotiate’, but on the basis of the initialled text of the ‘peace’ agreement, hitherto secret and published for the first time three days later on 11 August 2025, and then proceed to the earliest possible signing and ratification – if the parties themselves deem it necessary. The Armenian legislation contains a provision on the obligation of ratification for agreements of a political and military nature (Part 2 of Article 10 of the Law on International Treaties). There will be no problems with this – Pashinyan controls his tame parliament.
Contrary to the notion of the supreme collaborationist and his greyhounds that, allegedly, Ilham Aliyev cannot evade the implementation of the ‘peace’ agreement now, Azerbaijan has the right to decide on its own how and when to agree to the binding nature of this agreement, which, as we will see later, is extremely beneficial for it. As was already the case with the ill-fated Almaty Declaration, which the Armenian collaborationist regime so devoutly prays for and which, after signing, was never ratified by Azerbaijan (although it is referred to in the just published initialled text of the ‘peace’ agreement), which considers itself the successor of its first republic, but demands that we restore Soviet maps. At one time, even the Bishkek Protocol of 1994 on indefinite ceasefire, which saved Azerbaijan from complete collapse and surrender, was called non-binding in Azerbaijan.
The dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group
Of course, Armenia and Azerbaijan are not in a league to be able to disband such an international platform on their own, but the consent of one of its main co-chairs, the United States, is already included in this ‘appeal’. Given the (self-)isolation of Russia and the official approval of the just signed memorandum by France – the case is essentially over.
It should be recalled that the Minsk Group of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is the only structure authorised to deal with the peaceful settlement of the Artsakh/Karabakh conflict. There is no indication in any document of the platform created in 1992 that the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAO) is to be recognised as part of Azerbaijan, which now actually dissolves it. Moreover, for many years, Turkey has been unsuccessfully trying to get into the ranks of its permanent co-chairs – isn’t it too much effort for a ‘useless’ institution?
Therefore, it is obvious that even after several years of inaction, it prevents Aliyev from consolidating his military and political success, whitewashing his ‘reputation’ of a genocidal dictator and calmly continuing to distribute contracts on ugly construction in Artsakh. For the same reason, it is understandable why the regime, which denies the right of Artsakh Armenians not only to their homeland, but to life, supports such a development of events. Even the weak institutional memory of, at the minimum, the disputed status of Artsakh and to protect its interests by Armenia must be eradicated at its origin.
Thus, ladies and gentlemen, this is the resolution to the conflict as mediated by the countries with the largest Armenian communities that once negotiated the fate of Artsakh on this platform, as they simultaneously agreed to unnecessary concessions and pushing these communities away from Armenia.
The loss of Syunik and of the border with Iran
According to clauses 3 and 4 of the memorandum, for which all of this was orchestrated, Armenia grants Azerbaijan and Turkey the right to freely use Syunik for unhindered communication between them subject to ‘outsourcing its operations to an international licensed company’ (sic!), with the maximally simplified automated customs and border control by the Armenian authorities.
Once again, the formula ‘sovereignty, territorial integrity and jurisdiction of the state’ is being used, which the Turkish commandant and his young Janissaries have been reciting as mantra for 5 years in a row. At the same time, it is emphasised that the transport link between the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic and Azerbaijan has a special status (sic!): it must be ‘unhindered’ by Armenia, which hereby undertakes to create ‘The Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity’ on its territory (according to Donald Trump, this is exactly what the corridor is) for 99 years with the right to extend for another 99 years with the possibility of participation of ‘third countries’. For this purpose, Armenia transfers ‘development rights’ to the United States so that an ‘international consortium’ can carry out construction and other works on its territory – on a sublease basis.
It would be scandalous to ask questions about how the ill-fated ‘respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty’ will be observed in the event of a state of emergency or war requiring the exclusive control by the Republic of Armenia, rather than an unknown private company, and citizens from which countries will be employed in it. It would be even more naive to ask whether our territory will be used for simple and straight transfer of weapons from Turkey to Azerbaijan and back, which can then be used against us. But the arguments like ‘we will be able to use Nakhichevan for logistical purposes’ win only in the ‘naivety’ nomination. Firstly, apart from ‘mutual benefits’, the memorandum does not directly mention any logistics routes for Armenia in Azerbaijan, not even ‘minimally simplified’ ones. Secondly, it is obvious that even in this case we would not be able to use them safely – the memory of the stoned Armenian trains to Syunik and Artsakh is still alive. There will be no military presence of Americans and there will be no guarantees (even if not entirely sincere) for the safety of the Armenian Syunik and its population along the corridor – much less in Nakhichevan.
The above tells us that the general framework of the so-called opening of communications has not fundamentally changed since the Trilateral Statement of 9 November 2020. The term ‘unhindered’ was used again (see clause 9 of the Trilateral Statement), which Azerbaijan unquestioningly interpreted as the absence of any border posts of the competent authorities of Armenia along the stretch of the corridor. There is no direct reference to the establishment of the Armenian border and customs control points on Trump’s Route in the text of the memorandum. The mention in the TRIPP agreement of the subordination of the international consortium to the Armenian legislation is ridiculous for the reason that the Turkish commandant, through the parliament under his control, is entitled to change this very legislation in such a way as he sees fit: for example, to create a certain ‘special customs and border regime’ for Trump’s Route, which will allow the pan-Turkists to break through to the Caspian Sea and Central Asia in full accordance with the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Alexandropol (1920), which put an end to the First Armenian Republic that capitulated to the newly created Turkey.
In addition, there is no obligation, for example, for Azerbaijan to ensure unhindered communication along the Goris-Kapan highway, which has been under Azerbaijani police and military control since 2021, to which Pashinyan’s adjutants react sheepishly: the road is ours, except for ‘two sections’. Let us not even talk about the Lachin corridor, which was blocked by the Azerbaijani military in 2020-2023 with the consent and support of the Russian peacekeeping contingent, after which the Republic of Artsakh was subjected to another attack, was forcibly dissolved and its entire population forced out.
We will not even talk about the possibility of buying real estate by this very ‘international consortium’, as well as Turkish, Azerbaijani, and – why not – Pakistani citizens, turning the life of locals into hell, cutting off two parts of Armenia from each other and from Iran – after all, this is what the corridor is being created for. Meanwhile, the Young Janissaries are rubbing their hands in anticipation of increase in property prices in the region, as though if residents of Meghri sell their houses to the Turks for thirty pieces of silver more, the conscience of the Turkish henchmen will be clear.
For some reason, the ‘unblocking’ of regional communications takes place exclusively on the territory of Armenia and at the expense of Armenians.
Further abandonment of the Armenian territory
As for the clause 5 of the trilateral memorandum, it essentially repeats the reference to the Almaty Protocols of 1991, which established the rules of international communication between nation-states formed after the collapse of the USSR. However, the Turkish commandant, Aliyev and Trump have forgotten that the Almaty Declaration referred to such inalienable principles as the right of nations to self-determination and respect for human rights and freedoms, including national minorities.
It should be noted that the Almaty Protocols did not regulate the state borders of the former Soviet republics, because, according to international law, this is an exclusively bilateral issue of neighbouring nations. It is implied that the basis for delimitation and demarcation is the principle of uti possidetis[1]. Apparently, Pashinyan wants Artsvashen[2] back under our control. And the question is – will there be an ‘unhindered connection’ with this enclave of ours, when (if – see the end of the article) we give the Syunik-connecting Tigranashen (which never had the status of an enclave, like Voskepar) to our new friends?
Renunciation of the Declaration of Independence
Needless to say, that clause 5 about ‘bright future’ and ‘recognition of territorial integrity’, along with clause 1 about a future ‘peace’ agreement, confirms Pashinyan’s willingness to rewrite the Armenian Constitution to the whims of his masters and renounce the Declaration of Independence, which states Armenia’s responsibility for Artsakh and the struggle for recognition of the Genocide?
Repeal of Section 907 of the U.S. law
In a bilateral format, Aliyev succeeded in initiating the long-pursued formal repeal of the Section 907 to the Freedom Support Act, which recognised Azerbaijan as an aggressor country against Armenia and Artsakh and forbade the White House to provide any support to Azerbaijan.
We have repeatedly written about the culpability and responsibility of Armenian state and community leaders for the fate of Section 907 to the Freedom Support Act, which became one of the harbingers of our military and political victory in the First Karabakh War of 1991-1994. As our ‘elites’ set off to monetise the fruits of victory sown by the blood of Armenian soldiers and lost any interest in Armenia’s medium- and long-term future, while writing off the Spyurk (foreign communities) as unnecessary, Azerbaijan signed the ‘Contract of the Century’ and began building up its military and diplomatic power, becoming a valuable asset for Western powers that are accountable to, first of all, their own taxpayers, especially the largest ones (oil and gas companies). But even then, a succession of presidents of the United States still paid attention to the Armenian world and opted only to regularly freeze Section 907, as the law allows – but not to repeal it outright.
Today, the bans on receiving military aid and restrictions on the import of necessary technologies and weapons have been officially lifted for Azerbaijan, and nothing prevents it from openly preparing for complete destruction of Armenia, which is fidgeting under its feet. To repeal the Section, Trump will need to go through Congress, where there is practically no one to really stand up for Armenia. And there would be no reason to do so, because the Armenian leadership itself no longer considers Azerbaijan an aggressor and crouches before the US president – thus, everything is right? Anyway, allowing and even legitimising discussions about the repeal of the Section is already a serious bar for Azerbaijan to have set, and unlike us, it will not lower it – ‘fortunately’, there are also levers to overcome it.
What is not included in the memorandum?
Above, we discussed the future ‘innovations’ of ‘Real Armenia’. What is left overboard of this doomed ship, which is already being sold off for parts, while its captain, on behalf of his masters, is thinking about how to sell them and the lives of his crew for more?
And there remain items that were not even mentioned at public events in Washington. We have not heard or read a word about the withdrawal of Azerbaijani troops from the ‘internationally recognised’ territories of Armenia in Syunik, Vayots Dzor and Gegharkunik; not a word about the rights of the indigenous people of Artsakh to return, or even just a mention; not a word about repatriation of Armenian hostages from the Baku prison. In short – there is no future for Armenia in the memorandum. Thus, unlike in 2020, Azerbaijan has no commitment to break and can this time act as prescribed on paper.
***
In fact, the Turkish commandant transferred the 42-km road through Syunik to external management for a century, allowing Turkey and Azerbaijan to use it seamlessly as they see fit. In the absence of clearly and unambiguously described mutual steps towards real reconciliation, rather than reproducing the Alexandropol Treaty of capitulation, we note that the pan-Turkists still have a wide scope of opportunities for the economic colonisation of Armenia with the tacit approval of the United States. The Turkish commandant and his greyhounds bark at critical voices in Armenia and Spyurk, claiming that they allegedly serve the interests of Russia, which is formally left out of the Trump Route. At the same time, in his virtuoso ‘turn to the West’ and ‘rapprochement with the United States’, Pashinyan did not bring any consolation prizes from Washington in the form of meaningful new agreements – this time either.
To this, we modestly note that the anti-Russian position itself is not necessarily pro-Armenian. Russia maintains a military presence in Armenia and has a wide range of bilateral and multilateral mechanisms of economic pressure on Yerevan. Moreover, the Turkish commandant personally reports on the effectiveness of Armenia’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union and recently applied to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the charter of which condemns ‘separatism and extremism’ – articles imputed to the Armenian hostages on trial in Baku. Finally, nothing prevents the United States from offering Russia participation in Trump’s Route, because this matter is now a prerogative of Washington, not Yerevan.
Finally, we would like to note the formula of ‘renouncing revenge now and in the future’ specified in the memorandum. If the signatories really believe that retribution will not reach them, by the Armenian state justice, they are sorely mistaken.
How to survive until retribution?
As we wrote at the beginning, we are convinced that whatever the Turkish collaborationists are doing to harm us is quite possible to turn in our favour. Of course, our enemy is not as naive as we were at the time, and is not disarmed by the sincere smile of their pet dog – Pashinyan. However, when starting off from our national interests and understanding the interests of the adversary, the formal presence of an influential and institutionalised ‘mediator’ (although we must have been convinced by the example of the Trilateral Statement of 9 November 2020 that such agreements do not have mediators – only interested parties) creates an opportunity to shape agreements. Actually, this is what Azerbaijan is busy with right now, it has hit the jackpot not for beautiful eyes and not even for oil wells.
Only the Armenian national aristocracy can formulate our national interest and understand the interests of those involved in the partition of Armenia. It depends only on the speed of its formation, its reputation and quality whether and how the points of the memorandum will be implemented, whether we will be able to return the Armenian Question and its Armenian solution to the global agenda, or whether Pashinyan will finish what he started and close the Armenian Question irreversibly. Only a strategically minded elite can think through a roadmap for such complex and delicately-formulated goals and find the tools and levers to implement it.
All this is impossible while maintaining the current collaborationist regime. This regime includes not only the government, but also the ‘opposition’ of all shades and stripes, ‘former’ and allegedly not so much – in general, those who help Pashinyan retain power now and calmly return to Yerevan after signing consent to amputation of Syunik. If we do not remove these viruses from our suppressed immune system, after the ‘elections’ of 2026, unhindered Pashinyan will sign the consent to the euthanasia of the Armenian state on behalf of the entire Armenian world.
We do not have a chance to make a mistake. There are no second chances for the accomplices of our self-destruction and the culprits of Pashinyan’s rise to power either. The formation of a group that can look in the eyes of Armenians and communicate equally with the powerful of this world, the restoration of full-fledged connectivity and borders of Armenia, the rehabilitation of the Armenian identity and internal renewal, the trial in accordance with the Romanian scenario – to the last hypocrite. Or – Pashinyan in power, to the last Armenian. Hopefully, the choice is obvious not only to us.
[1] New states acquire the same administrative boundaries as in the state, from which they seceded.
[2] Artsvashen is a large Armenian enclave village that was part of the Armenian SSR and has been under the military occupation of Azerbaijan since 1992. It belongs to the Gegharkunik region of Armenia.
