Who could object when former enemies declare their intention to sign a peace agreement? In an era of global uncertainty—where alliances fracture, friendships are re-priced, and geopolitical fault lines shift—a statement in favor of peace sounds like welcome news: a step away from future wars, and perhaps a step toward reconciliation.

Yet, who is naïve enough to believe that just two years after Aliyev’s forces invaded Armenian-populated Nagorno-Karabakh (September 19, 2023) and carried out a complete ethnic cleansing of the region in ten days, genuine peace is possible? Who imagines that a weakened Armenia—abandoned by its traditional allies, whether Russia, Europe, or the U.S.—could secure favorable terms? And who believes Donald Trump, currently backing Israel’s devastation of Gaza, has a sincere interest in “peace”?

Yes, we can welcome the idea of peace. But in reality, what awaits Armenia may be peace on very unfavorable terms.

What Is the Declaration About?

The full agreement signed in Washington remains undisclosed. What we have is a two-page, seven-point Declaration.

Its first point states that the sides have “agreed upon the text of the Agreement on Establishment of Peace and Inter-State Relations” between Armenia and Azerbaijan, while acknowledging the need for “further actions” before signing a final document. In other words, no real progress was made in Washington beyond what negotiations had already reached.

Armenia made a notable concession by agreeing to dissolve the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, mandated since 1992 to find a negotiated solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This concession is mostly symbolic—the Minsk Group (co-chaired by the U.S., France, and Russia) had already proven ineffective in stopping the 2020 war or the destruction of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

The most striking—and most discussed—element is the fourth point: the creation of the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity,” a transport corridor linking mainland Azerbaijan to its Nakhichevan exclave through the territory of Armenia. Point three highlights “the importance of opening communications between the two countries,” which could also mean unblocking Armenian transit routes through Azerbaijan.

On August 11, both countries’ foreign ministries published a 17-point “initialed Agreement,” awaiting final signatures. Why the delay? One plausible reason is that Azerbaijan still has additional preconditions outside the agreed framework and is biding its time for more favorable regional shifts.

What the Declaration Leaves Out

The Declaration says nothing about the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh, its displaced Armenian population, or their right to return. It is silent on the thousands of Armenian cultural sites now under Azerbaijani control—including medieval monasteries belonging to the Armenian Apostolic Church.

It ignores the Armenian territories seized by Azerbaijan since 2021, including strategic heights and water sources.

It does not address Azerbaijan’s continued detention of numerous Armenian hostages from the 2020 war and the 2023 ethnic cleansing—among them political and military leaders of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, and philanthropist Ruben Vardanyan.

Finally, it makes no mention of Armenia’s still-blocked border with Turkey, which remains closed at Azerbaijan’s insistence. Whether this “historic” Declaration will lead to its opening remains uncertain, despite all sides now speaking the language of “peace.”

A New Geopolitical Tango

The “Trump Route” remains short on details, but its symbolic meaning is clear: the United States is back in the South Caucasus—its third major return since the USSR’s collapse.

First time: Under Bill Clinton, when Caspian oil routes were secured via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, bypassing Russia and Iran. 

Second time: Under George W. Bush, when Azerbaijan served as a logistical hub for U.S. operations in Afghanistan. 

Third time: Now, under Trump—potentially to control future trade routes from Asian factories to European markets.

This American “win” produces several losers:

Russia: Putin’s costly invasion of Ukraine has drained resources and eroded influence across its former Soviet sphere.

Iran: After decades of outsourcing its Caucasus policy to Moscow and focusing on ideological campaigns in the Middle East, Tehran now faces new risks on its northern border.

The EU: Despite decades of investment, Brussels finds itself sidelined—so much for Ursula von der Leyen’s “geopolitical Commission.”

Turkey: Excluded from the “Trump Route” despite its decisive military support for Azerbaijan in 2020. This exclusion could deepen mistrust between Ankara and Baku, especially amid shifting Middle Eastern dynamics and Israeli military moves in Syria.

Individually, these states cannot block U.S. plans. Collectively, they might—just as the 2020 ceasefire agreement envisioned Russian-guarded transit routes through Armenia, which Azerbaijan ignored, leading to renewed attacks and ethnic cleansing. Who can say what the region will look like by 2030—just five years away?

The Shape of Things to Come

Clues about the future may lie in two separate bilateral agreements signed in Washington alongside the Declaration. First, Azerbaijan–U.S. energy cooperation between SOCAR and ExxonMobil. With Azerbaijani oil production declining from a 2010 peak of 1 million barrels/day to just 580,000 in 2024, major investments are needed to maintain even current output. A second, Armenia–U.S. on technology cooperation, with Washington approving transfers for semiconductor and AI development.

While Azerbaijan’s economy remains rooted in declining fossil fuel exports, Armenia could—if it can seize the opportunity—pivot toward modernization and turn its recent suffering into long-term transformation.