Peace Agreement Aims To End 35-Year Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict

White House Ceremony Marks Potential Conclusion To Nagorno-Karabakh Dispute

Transit Corridor Agreement Grants United States Development Rights For 99 Years

WASHINGTON — Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev signed a joint declaration Friday at the White House, committing to a peace agreement that would end nearly four decades of conflict between the two countries over the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

The agreement, mediated by President Donald Trump, includes provisions for a strategic transit corridor linking mainland Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic through Armenian territory, with the United States granted exclusive development rights for 99 years.

The ceremony marks a potentially historic milestone in one of the post-Soviet era’s most intractable regional conflicts.

CONFLICT BACKGROUND: Decades Of Violence

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict began in 1988 when ethnic Armenians in the region, then an autonomous oblast within Soviet Azerbaijan, demanded unification with Armenia.

Following the Soviet Union’s collapse, the dispute escalated into full-scale war from 1991-1994, resulting in:

• Estimated tens of thousands killed
• Armenian forces gaining control of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding territories
• Approximately 353,000 Armenians from Azerbaijan displaced
• Approximately 500,000 Azerbaijanis from Armenia and Karabakh displaced

A Russian-brokered ceasefire in May 1994 established a fragile peace that lasted until renewed hostilities in 2016 and a major war in 2020.

The 2020 conflict ended with a Russia-brokered agreement that significantly changed territorial control and deployed Russian peacekeepers to the region.

In September 2023, Azerbaijan launched an operation that resulted in the dissolution of the self-declared Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), with more than 100,000 ethnic Armenians fleeing to Armenia.

NEGOTIATIONS TIMELINE: Path To Agreement

On March 13, 2025, Armenia and Azerbaijan announced that both parties had agreed on all terms of a peace agreement framework.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio characterized the announcement as “historic,” while European Union High Representative Kaja Kallas described it as “a decisive step.”

Subsequently, Azerbaijani President Aliyev stated that implementation required two additional conditions:

• Amendment of Armenia’s constitution to remove territorial claims
• Dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group that had previously mediated the conflict

Armenia indicated willingness to meet both conditions, though constitutional amendments require a referendum with uncertain outcomes.

AGREEMENT PROVISIONS: The TRIPP Corridor

A central component of the agreement involves construction of a transit corridor between mainland Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, which is geographically separated from the rest of Azerbaijan by a 32-kilometer (20-mile) stretch of Armenian territory.

The corridor will:

• Remain part of Armenian sovereign territory
• Operate according to Armenian law
• Grant the United States exclusive development rights for 99 years
• Be officially named the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP)

The strategic corridor would enable passage of people and goods from Europe to Azerbaijan and broader Central Asia without requiring transit through Russia or Iran.

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS: Regional Power Dynamics

The agreement and particularly the TRIPP corridor arrangement have significant implications for regional geopolitics.

The corridor provides:

• Alternative transit route avoiding Russian and Iranian territory
• Enhanced US influence in the South Caucasus region
• Economic development opportunities for participating nations
• Strategic positioning for Western interests in the region

Iran and Russia have publicly condemned US involvement in the TRIPP project, viewing it as encroachment on their traditional spheres of influence.

The Turkish-Azerbaijani blockade against Armenia, in place since 1989, has severely limited Armenia’s direct transit options. Completion of the TRIPP route could significantly alter regional trade patterns.

ARMENIAN PERSPECTIVE: Difficult Concessions

Political analyst Thomas de Waal notes that progress toward the agreement is largely attributed to Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan, who has made a series of concessions to reach a deal.

Those concessions include:

• Effective acceptance of Azerbaijani sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh
• Agreement to constitutional amendments
• Acceptance of transit corridor through Armenian territory
• Support for dissolving the OSCE Minsk Group

However, Pashinyan faces domestic political challenges:

• Opposition parties oppose the agreement terms
• His party has performed poorly in recent local elections
• A constitutional referendum outcome remains uncertain
• Significant portions of the Armenian public view the concessions as excessive

The agreement represents a significant shift in Armenian foreign policy, moving away from traditional reliance on Russia toward closer ties with Western institutions and the United States.

AZERBAIJANI POSITION: Strategic Objectives Achieved

De Waal also observes that Azerbaijani President Aliyev “rarely emphasizes the benefits of peace, and continues to use the conflict with Armenia as a means to consolidate his leadership within the country.”

From Azerbaijan’s perspective, the agreement achieves core objectives:

• International recognition of control over Nagorno-Karabakh
• Establishment of the long-sought Nakhchivan corridor
• Elimination of the OSCE Minsk Group
• Armenian constitutional changes addressing territorial claims

Azerbaijan has leveraged military victories in 2020 and 2023 into a favorable negotiating position.

CHANGING RELATIONSHIPS: Distancing From Moscow

Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have experienced deteriorating relations with Russia in recent years.

Armenia’s relationship with Moscow has been strained by:

• Russia’s failure to provide effective security assistance despite CSTO alliance obligations during 2020 and 2023 conflicts
• Perceived ineffectiveness of Russian peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh
• Armenia’s subsequent deployment of EU civilian monitoring mission
• Frozen participation in CSTO activities

Azerbaijan’s relations with Russia have also declined following:

• December 2024 incident where Russian air defense forces accidentally shot down an Azerbaijani civilian aircraft, killing 38
• Russia’s delayed acknowledgment of responsibility
• June 2025 deaths of two Azerbaijani citizens in Russian police custody
• President Aliyev’s last-minute cancellation of attendance at Moscow’s Victory Day parade in May

According to analysis from College of Europe researcher Nurlan Aliyev, both nations are now entering into a “South Caucasus security architecture” without Russian influence, representing a dramatic geopolitical shift in the region.

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES: Path To Ratification

The agreement is not yet final and faces several implementation hurdles:

Constitutional Referendum: Armenia must conduct a referendum on constitutional amendments, with timing and outcome uncertain. Opposition parties are actively campaigning against the changes.

Treaty Ratification: Following the referendum (if successful), both countries’ legislatures must formally ratify the complete peace treaty.

Corridor Construction: Physical development of the TRIPP corridor will require substantial investment, technical planning, and ongoing cooperation between parties with a history of conflict.

Monitoring Mechanisms: Implementation of peace terms will require establishment of verification and enforcement procedures.

INTERNATIONAL REACTIONS: Mixed Responses

Western nations and institutions have generally welcomed the agreement:

• United States views it as diplomatic achievement
• European Union expressed support for peaceful resolution
• NATO allies welcomed reduced regional tensions

Russia and Iran have expressed concerns:

• Moscow views US involvement as encroachment in traditional sphere of influence
• Tehran opposes transit arrangements that bypass Iranian territory
• Both nations question long-term US development rights in the region

Turkey, a close ally of Azerbaijan, has supported the agreement.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT: Pope Francis’ Role

Pope Francis unexpectedly referenced the peace negotiations in a message from the hospital last month, expressing optimism about the agreed final text and hoping for swift signing to “establish lasting peace in the South Caucasus.”

The Pope’s involvement highlights the international attention focused on resolving this long-standing conflict.

OUTLOOK: Uncertain But Hopeful

Friday’s White House ceremony represents significant progress toward ending a conflict that has caused immense human suffering over 35 years.

However, substantial challenges remain before the agreement becomes fully implemented and operational.

The Armenian constitutional referendum will serve as a critical test of public support for the agreement’s terms.

If successfully implemented, the accord could fundamentally reshape the South Caucasus region’s geopolitical alignment, reducing Russian influence while increasing Western involvement in an area Moscow has historically dominated. Zelenskyy added.

The Ukrainian position has been consistent: Putin won’t negotiate in good faith until the economic cost of continuing the war becomes unbearable.

So far, Western sanctions haven’t reached that threshold, despite being the most comprehensive ever imposed on a major economy.

TRUMP’S DILEMMA: Caught Between Putin And Reality

The President faces an increasingly difficult situation:

He promised to end the war quickly. That hasn’t happened.

He tried personal diplomacy with Putin at Alaska. That produced no lasting results.

He’s resisted some Ukrainian requests for fear of escalation. Putin interpreted that as weakness.

Now Trump is considering providing Tomahawks and has said Ukraine should try to “take back” all occupied territory — positions much closer to European and Ukrainian views than to his initial approach.

Trump’s reluctance to impose the truly crushing sanctions Zelenskyy wants stems from his desire to eventually normalize US-Russian relations.

But Putin has shown zero interest in giving Trump a diplomatic victory.

THE ISTANBUL TALKS: Brief Hope, Quick Disappointment

There have been multiple rounds of direct talks between Russian and Ukrainian officials:

• May 15-16: First direct talks in three years in Istanbul
• June 2: Second round, both sides exchanged memorandums
• July: Additional rounds producing prisoner exchanges but no ceasefire

None achieved breakthroughs toward ending the fighting.

Russia’s negotiating position has actually hardened since 2022, demanding more territory and more concessions as its military advances have continued.

Ukrainian officials proposed that Zelenskyy, Putin, Trump, and Turkish President Erdogan meet this summer for leader-level talks.

Putin sent a low-level delegation instead. The talks lasted less than two hours.

THE EUROPEAN POSITION: Security Guarantees For Ukraine

European leaders have been pushing for robust security guarantees for Ukraine akin to NATO Article 5 protections.

An unprecedented White House meeting in August brought together leaders from:

• United Kingdom
• Finland
• France
• Italy
• Germany
• NATO
• European Union
• Ukraine

Trump said at the time that Europeans are “willing to put people on the ground” for security guarantees, while the US would help “probably by air.”

Russia has rejected any proposal involving foreign troops in Ukraine, viewing it as NATO expansion by another name.

This fundamental disagreement — Ukraine and Europe want security guarantees, Russia demands no foreign military presence — remains unresolved.

WHAT RYABKOV’S ADMISSION MEANS: Back To Square One

By acknowledging that the “momentum” from Alaska has been “undermined,” Russia is essentially admitting:

1. The summit produced no lasting agreements
2. Subsequent negotiations have gone nowhere
3. Both sides are further apart now than in August
4. No breakthrough is imminent

Ryabkov’s comments came the same day Russian officials issued new threats about “severe consequences” if the US provides Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine.

So Russia’s diplomatic message is: Negotiations have failed, and if you arm Ukraine more, things will get worse.

That’s not a peace strategy. That’s a threat.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Peace Talks Are Dead (For Now)

Let’s cut through the diplomatic language:

The Alaska summit was supposed to be Trump’s big diplomatic achievement. It flopped.

Multiple rounds of talks in Istanbul produced nothing but prisoner exchanges.

Russia keeps demanding more as its military advances continue.

Ukraine refuses to surrender territory or accept limits on its sovereignty.

European allies want security guarantees Russia won’t provide.

Trump is frustrated but hasn’t found a formula that works.

And Ryabkov just admitted what everyone already knew: the peace talks have collapsed.

Meanwhile, Russian drones keep flying. Ukrainian cities keep burning. NATO airspace keeps getting violated.

And winter is coming — with no end to the war in sight.

DEVELOPING SITUATION — Follow for updates as peace efforts remain stalled and the conflict continues…