Azerbaijan demands control over Meghri railway

Armenia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (FIS) has published a report outlining significant risks tied to Azerbaijan’s expansionist policies and the current regional situation. However, beyond the officially listed threats—ranging from military pressure to diplomatic blackmail—one extremely dangerous and strategically important issue was left unaddressed: Baku’s growing claims over the Meghri railway. What was once a topic for narrow expert discussions has now become a central element of Azerbaijan’s state propaganda, requiring immediate and thorough analysis, especially in light of official Yerevan’s strange, if not alarming, silence.

In recent weeks, Azerbaijan’s information space has been filled with statements that can hardly be interpreted as anything other than the preparation of a legal and political basis for the de facto alienation of part of Armenia’s sovereign territory. Former Azerbaijani foreign ministers Tofig Zulfugarov and Elmar Mammadyarov have both asserted that Baku allegedly holds ownership rights over the Meghri railway. Their argument rests on Soviet legacy: since this section of the railway was once managed by the Azerbaijani Railways during the Soviet period, the modern republic, as its successor, supposedly retains exclusive rights to it. The fact that such claims are voiced by prominent figures in Azerbaijani diplomacy and broadcast by state media shows this is not the private opinion of retirees but rather a deliberate attempt to legitimize future demands at the state level.

Baku is steadily shifting the discussion from “unblocking communications” to “restoring property rights.” If previously the issue was framed as the right of passage, now it is about ownership. This qualitative change in rhetoric fundamentally alters the nature of negotiations. In this context, the absence of a clear, firm, and official response from Armenia’s Foreign Ministry and government is deeply troubling. In diplomacy, silence is often perceived as consent—or at the very least, as a sign of weakness and unwillingness to defend one’s positions.

This contrast is especially striking against the backdrop of formal assurances that Armenia and the United States have agreed on the TRIPP (Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity) project. We are told this project will guarantee Armenia’s sovereignty, with international involvement and Western investment serving as a shield against territorial claims. Yet, as always, the devil is in the details. Ruling party MP Vahagn Aleksanyan has already stated openly that Armenian border guards will not be present along this route—they will be replaced by modern technical means, the so-called “scanners.”

Here arises a logical and existential contradiction. Can a state truly be considered sovereign over a transport corridor if it does not exercise physical control through its border and customs services? Replacing human oversight with technology, at a time when a neighboring state openly declares ownership claims over this infrastructure, looks like a veiled capitulation. In international practice, control over critical infrastructure is an inseparable attribute of sovereignty. The refusal to station border guards in favor of “scanners” is not modernization—it is a step toward turning the Meghri section into an extraterritorial enclave under international or Azerbaijani management, no matter how attractively Western concepts may frame it.

Statements by Zulfugarov and Mammadyarov that “the railway belongs to Azerbaijan” are a direct threat to territorial integrity. The fact that Armenia’s government has not convened emergency consultations or publicly rejected these legally absurd claims creates a dangerous precedent. The international community, including mediators such as the US and EU, sees that Armenia is not raising the issue forcefully. Consequently, in their view, this topic may become negotiable.

In conclusion, it should be noted that while the FIS report is important, it only touches the tip of the iceberg. The main threat today is not just the possibility of renewed escalation at the border but a quiet “annexation of meaning,” whereby Armenia is conditioned to accept that its railways do not belong to it and its sovereignty can be replaced by digital sensors. While Baku prepares the legal groundwork for expansion, Yerevan is absorbed in concepts that lack the most crucial element—mechanisms of real, physical control over its own territory. Without a clear assessment of Baku’s claims to the Meghri railway and without reinstating border control as a non-negotiable condition in talks, any discussion of peace will remain nothing more than a façade for the gradual dismantling of Armenian statehood in the south.

Think about it…