As reported earlier, Lavrov, who accompanied Vladimir Putin during the Russian president’s state visit to Baku, stated in an interview with Russia’s “Channel One”:
“As for the communications passing through the Syunik region of Armenia, unfortunately, it is the leadership of Armenia that is sabotaging the agreement signed by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. It’s hard to understand the reasoning behind such a position.”
The next day, the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an angry statement, asserting that it was not Armenia but Russia that was engaging in “sabotage” in the region, and that it was the Russian side that had violated the obligations it undertook in the tripartite statement of November 10, 2020.
Official Yerevan also noted that Lavrov’s statement casts doubt on Russia’s constructive role in the process of normalizing relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Observers inferred from this that Yerevan is rejecting President Putin’s call to return Armenian-Azerbaijani peace talks to the Moscow platform, a proposal made during his visit to Baku.
On August 21, after the diplomatic “crossfire” between Yerevan and Moscow, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova explained in a briefing how Armenia had stalled negotiations on opening the transport link known as the “Zangezur Corridor.”
Zakharova initially pointed out that “Yerevan’s reaction to Sergey Lavrov’s statement indicates attempts by Armenia to blame Russia for its own strategic mistakes.” She then shared details of the negotiations on opening transport links in Zangezur, which took place from 2021 to 2023 with Moscow’s direct involvement.
It is worth noting that these negotiations were conducted within the framework of a commission involving the deputy prime ministers of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Russia, established in early 2021 based on a principled agreement by the leaders of the three countries.
Zakharova reported that during the negotiations, Armenia retreated from its previously agreed position on opening the railway connecting Azerbaijan with the Nakhchivan region. Initially, the Armenian representative requested that the issue of opening this railway be discussed separately from the unblocking of the highway in the same direction, and later opposed the idea of the Russian FSB Border Guard Service controlling the railway.
Yerevan also demanded that Russian border guards control the railway checkpoint on the Azerbaijani side, although the tripartite statement of November 10 did not mention this.
“Yerevan retreated from previously agreed positions and began insisting, based on a principle of reciprocity they themselves formulated, on the presence of Russian border guards not only on the Armenian side but also on the Azerbaijani side,” Zakharova said. “Armenian representatives refused to agree on the control of transport links by the Russian FSB Border Guard Service.”
It should be added that Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has repeatedly distorted the essence of the well-known point in the tripartite agreement of November 10 regarding the “Zangezur Corridor,” claiming that it contains no obligations for Armenia concerning Russian control. Now, in light of the recent dispute between Moscow and Yerevan, it has become clear that Armenia fundamentally rejects any possibility of Russian control, which has effectively stalled the negotiations.
It is also confirmed that despite the agreement to build a highway along the railway through Meghri, connecting Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan, Armenia proposed a longer and more complex route through mountainous terrain, while postponing the issue of constructing the highway.
The latest diplomatic spat between Yerevan and Moscow confirms that, as before, the opening of the “Zangezur Corridor” and control over it remain priority issues for Russia. This is true even though the Armenian-Azerbaijani dialogue on the future peace agreement project saw both sides compromise by agreeing to postpone the transport corridor issue until after the peace treaty is signed, to discuss it in detail later in a bilateral governmental commission format. A few days ago, this compromise was mentioned in Washington by Elchin Amirbekov, a special representative of the Azerbaijani president, in an interview with Radio Liberty.
It should also be noted that the “Zangezur Corridor” has been sabotaged not only by Armenia but also by Iran. Tehran, in particular, presented the opening of the railway connecting Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan as a direct threat to its national interests and took an overtly aggressive stance throughout the negotiation process, even periodically threatening military action.
Interestingly, in recent times, the opening of the “Zangezur Corridor” has become one of the priorities of the United States in its South Caucasus policy. High-ranking U.S. officials have openly stated several times that they continue to push for the opening of a trade route that bypasses Russia and connects Central Asia with Europe through the territories of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Turkey. In other words, Washington is interested in opening the railway that connects Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan and passes through the current territory of Armenia, but, of course, without any form of Russian control.
The U.S. approach aligns with Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan’s “Peaceful Crossroads” concept, which envisions that along with the opening of the railway between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan, Armenia’s rail connections with Iran and Russia through Azerbaijan should also be restored, and Armenia’s borders with Turkey should be opened.
As is known, the official reaction from Baku to Pashinyan’s “Peaceful Crossroads” was indifferent, and without Azerbaijan’s fundamental agreement, the prime minister’s concept loses all meaning.
Thus, the “Zangezur Corridor” issue is once again sharply emerging on the agenda as one of the most important objects of geopolitical rivalry among the great powers in the South Caucasus region.
Farhad Mammadov
Translated from haqqin.az
