Armenians, Georgians, and Central Asians Vary in Response to Yerevan-Baku Settlement

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Aug. 10 – Those directly affected by the Yerevan-Baku settlement just announced in Washington are beginning to take positions about it in response. Not unexpectedly Russia and Tehran oppose the accord while Azerbaijanis are jubilant about an agreement that gives them something they have long wanted, a direct land corridor to Nakhichevan.

            But three others, the Armenians, the Georgians, and the peoples of Central Asia are either divided in their reaction or are only now beginning to reflect on precisely what the accord will mean for them and thus how they should respond as they adapt themselves to the new geopolitical realities the agreement creates.

            In Armenia, President Nikol Pashinyan is wholeheartedly in favor of the accord. Indeed, he has staked his career on reorienting his country away from Russia and toward the West and sees a peace accord with Azerbaijan and transit arrangements from Azerbaijan proper to the Azerbaijani exclave Nakhichevan as essential to that shift.

            But many Armenian politicians oppose the deal, viewing it as a harbinger of a further decline in the size of their country or even a harbinger of its complete disappearance. They fear that the arrangements that have been announced will leave them isolated (kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/413685).

How many Armenians feel that way is unknown, but there appear to be enough that Moscow is likely to try to set them against the Pashinyan regime so as to return Armenia to what the Russians believe is their proper place as a part of Russia’s uncontested sphere of influence.

            In Georgia, officials and politicians are divided. Some believe the new transit arrangements will make it easier for Iran to ship via Armenia and then into Georgia for transshipment on to Europe and thus will benefit Georgia and firmly integrate it in the world (novayagazeta.eu/articles/2025/08/10/katastrofa-ili-geopoliticheskii-shans).

But others, most prominently former president Mikhail Saakashvili take the opposite view and think that the Armenian-Azerbaijani accord will prove a disaster for Georgia. He says that the new Zengezur route, one that bypasses Georgia, Iran and Russia will be a disaster (frontnews.ge/en/news/ex-pres-saakashvili-warns-of-geopolitical-catastrophe-for-georgia-over-new-armeniaazerbaijan-transit-corridor).

            According to Saakasvili who is now in prison, Georgians “are ending up in complete geopolitical isolation alongside Iran and Russia.” They are losing their status as the region’s transit hub, and “this means the iron curtain will come down at the Red Bridge border crossing and we will plunge into the abyss together with Moscow and Tehran.”

            Moreover, the former president continued, the corridor project “would render Georgia’s existing ports – and the planned Lazika port – obsolete, leading to accelerated emigration and deepening poverty.” In short, the Washington deal will prove a disaster for his republic both at home and abroad.

            And in Central Asia, the governments have come out in support of the transit deal, confident that if it is realized, the Middle Corridor transit network will expand and work to their benefit. But many of them remain concerned that the project faces many obstacles before it can be achieved given that there are so many unknowns (timesca.com/tentative-armenia-azerbaijan-corridor-plan-could-boost-the-middle-corridor-for-central-asia/ and timesca.com/tentative-armenia-azerbaijan-corridor-plan-could-boost-the-middle-corridor-for-central-asia/).

            As a result, while in principle supportive, they will be watching to see what comes next.