All What will happen in 2025? Artsakh, Armenia, New World Order What to Expect in 2026? Untold Story Title The People Speak Simple Truths Real Turkey Out of Sight Newsroom Instaface Ethnic Code Big Story Artsakh exodus Armenian literature: Audiobook Alpha Economics Alpha Analytics 7 portraits from the history of the Armenian people 5 portraits from the history of the Armenian people

Beniamin Matevosyan: The US is handing Armenia over to Turkey

May 15 2026, 12:00

(The Armenian authorities are aware of all the risks)

A recent statement by the US Embassy in Yerevan, in which Washington warmly welcomed the lifting of restrictions on direct trade between Armenia and Turkey, has served as a clear indicator of the West’s long-term strategy in the region. The diplomatic enthusiasm over the May 13, 2026 agreements, which opened the door to trade operations without third-country intermediaries, reveals the true role the American administration assigns to Ankara. Within the White House’s framework, Turkey is being de facto established as the region’s “custodian,” at least until a hypothetical “grand deal” with Russia materializes. The move signals Washington’s desire to delegate management of the Armenian vector as fully as possible to its key NATO ally, tying Yerevan’s economic and political circuits into Turkish infrastructure.

Of particular interest is the selective “deafness” of American diplomacy on questions of regional unblocking. While the lifting of trade barriers with Turkey is commented on instantly and in glowing terms, the launch of actual railway transit through Azerbaijani territory, which began as far back as November 6, 2025, long remained in a “grey zone” of American attention. By May 2026, more than 45,000 tonnes of cargo – grain, fertilizers, and fuel from Russia and Kazakhstan – had already passed along this route, the result of complex trilateral arrangements between Yerevan, Moscow, and Baku dating to the 2020–2022 period. Yet precisely this success was ignored by Western institutions, as it did not fit the communications model they were promoting, that excludes a leading role for regional actors and Russian influence.

This dualism shows that what matters to the United States is not the unblocking of routes in itself, but rather under whose patronage it takes place. If transit through Azerbaijan is the fruit of direct dialogue between neighbors with Moscow’s mediation, it is met with skepticism or silence. If, on the other hand, projects incorporate Armenia into Turkey’s orbit, a response follows immediately. Even when American officials began making cautious positive comments about the Azerbaijani transit months after it had started, it looked more like a belated attempt to slot themselves into a reality they had been unable to prevent. The delayed reaction only underscores the point: Washington does not want Yerevan to genuinely strengthen its agency through multi-vector logistics, preferring the monopoly influence of the Turkish–American tandem.

In effect, the United States is demonstrating a readiness to hand Armenia over to Turkey’s sphere of responsibility while sparing itself the burden of providing real security guarantees for the Armenian population. In this geopolitical construction, Yerevan is offered “prosperity” in exchange for strategic loyalty to Ankara, while the question of physical security and the preservation of sovereignty under conditions of expanding Turkish influence remains unanswered. Official calls for “lasting peace” in the South Caucasus ring out against a backdrop of no concrete mechanisms for protecting Armenian interests, reducing Armenia to a bargaining chip in the game of displacing Russian influence.

What is more, serious questions arise about the justification for past sacrifices. If the unblocking of communications, as the Azerbaijani transit experience demonstrates, was achievable through arrangements involving Moscow, then the tragedy of losing Artsakh appears all the more unwarranted. It is evident that external supervisors actively promoted alternative communications projects, such as rebranding the so-called “Zangezur Corridor” under new names, in order to wrest the initiative from regional powers.

Armenia’s authorities appear to be aware of these risks, understanding that behind the facade of “economic assistance” lies an attempt at the final dismantling of the regional balance of power, in which Armenia is cast in the role of a satellite of Turkish interests under Washington’s supervision.

Think about it…