Pashinyan’s “corridor diplomacy” threatens Armenia

Let’s return to the autumn of 2020. War. A devastating defeat. The trilateral declaration signed on November 9, 2020, which still left Artsakh under Armenian control and established mutual obligations to unblock transport communications in the region. However, what followed can hardly be called implementation of that agreement. In fact, Artsakh was ultimately lost entirely. So what really happened?

If we believe the version of events presented by the Armenian authorities, who insist that what happened was not betrayal and that they are not executing a plan devised by Turkish intelligence (MIT), and that Artsakh fell due to political and geopolitical processes, then it’s time to understand what they mean.

For a long time, we witnessed how Pashinyan and his team gave subjective interpretations of the objective provisions enshrined in the November 9 document.

After November 9, Baku introduced the term “Zangezur corridor.” For example, in December 2021, when the “Zangezur corridor” was extended to Brussels, during a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Ilham Aliyev stated that the trilateral statements clearly mention that Azerbaijan provides security and access to the Lachin corridor, and Armenia must provide the same unimpeded access to the “Zangezur corridor.” “Currently, there are no customs checkpoints in the Lachin corridor. The same should apply to the ‘Zangezur corridor,’” he noted.

Pashinyan responded to Aliyev’s statement: “Azerbaijan is trying to derail the issue of opening regional communications. Attempts by the President of Azerbaijan to equate the opening of regional communications with the Lachin corridor have nothing to do with the discussions and signed statements on this topic and are unacceptable to Armenia.”

Even this single episode proves that there is no agreement between Yerevan and Baku on the basic principles of the November 9 document. The result was the abandonment of Artsakh. And on August 8, the OSCE Minsk Group was dissolved. But just like after November 9, 2020, there is still no agreement between the sides on the basic points of the negotiation agenda. Pashinyan and Aliyev interpret the document signed in Washington differently.

Then, on September 27, speaking from the UN podium in New York, Pashinyan called on Ilham Aliyev to focus on implementing the agreements reached and to use only legitimate terms. He asked Aliyev to explain what he means by the term “Zangezur corridor.”

In reality, it is more likely that Aliyev is telling the truth, and Turkish intelligence indeed formalized the “corridor” under the term TRIPP. But if Aliyev is lying, then Pashinyan’s “corridor diplomacy” takes us back to the period after the signing of the November 9, 2020 declaration, when differing interpretations of the agreements by Yerevan and Baku led to a national tragedy. Moreover, if after 2020 we had a mediator, and Pashinyan and Aliyev spent part of their time pushing the Russian mediator out of the negotiations, now we are left alone against two—Turkey and Azerbaijan, which indicates that a new national catastrophe could occur by the end of 2026 if Pashinyan manages to retain power in the parliamentary elections.

And what of the peace Pashinyan spoke of so enthusiastically at the UN? At the opening ceremony of the CIS Games in Azerbaijan, the country’s authorities used the phrase “iron fist” and the number 44, accompanied by the words “Victory over the enemy.”

Aliyev is preparing for a new act of war, while Pashinyan is ready to pay a price for retaining power that may be even higher than the one paid during the 44 autumn days of 2020.

Think about it…