Armenia-Azerbaijan: Peace Deal's Fragile New Reality

For thirty-five years, the South Caucasus has been defined by a single, grinding certainty: Armenia and Azerbaijan do not make peace. They make ceasefires, ceasefire violations, wars, and frozen lines of contact that eventually reignite. In August 2025, that certainty broke. Inside the State Dining Room of the White House, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev stood beside Donald Trump and initialed a document neither side's diplomats had managed to produce in three decades of mediation by Russia, the OSCE Minsk Group, and the European Union combined.

What followed has been one of the more remarkable, and least appreciated, geopolitical realignments of the past two years - a process that has pushed Russia out of a region it dominated for two centuries, handed the United States a 99-year development lease on strategically vital territory deep inside the former Soviet space, and forced Iran into open, anxious objection to an arrangement unfolding on its own northern border. And yet, ten months after that White House handshake, the peace treaty itself remains unsigned, hostage to an Armenian constitutional process that just cleared its first hurdle - Pashinyan's June 2026 election victory - while falling short of the supermajority needed to finish the job. This is the real state of Armenia-Azerbaijan in mid-2026: genuine, historic progress, sitting on top of a fault line that has not actually closed.

Executive Summary

The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, rooted in the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute that erupted as the Soviet Union dissolved, has moved further toward resolution in the past eighteen months than in the previous three decades combined. Azerbaijan's swift 2023 offensive eliminated the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh Republic entirely, triggering the exodus of virtually the entire ethnic Armenian population and removing, in brutal fashion, the territorial entity that had anchored the conflict since 1988. With Karabakh's status no longer contested on the ground, Yerevan and Baku spent 2024 and 2025 negotiating what neither had achieved in any previous round: a comprehensive peace agreement addressing borders, security guarantees, and connectivity.

That agreement was initialed on August 8, 2025, at a US-brokered summit, alongside a joint declaration establishing the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) - a 32-kilometer transit corridor through Armenia's Syunik province connecting mainland Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave, developed under an exclusive 99-year American lease while remaining nominally under Armenian sovereignty and law. The deal represents a dramatic geopolitical pivot: Armenia, traditionally Russia's closest South Caucasus ally and a member of both the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Eurasian Economic Union, has turned decisively toward Washington and Brussels, while Moscow has been displaced as the region's principal security arbiter for the first time since the late Soviet period.

Yet the treaty remains formally unsigned. Azerbaijan's precondition - that Armenia strip a constitutional reference interpreted as a territorial claim to Karabakh - requires a referendum Pashinyan cannot hold without first controlling enough parliamentary seats to advance the process. His Civil Contract party's victory in the June 7, 2026, parliamentary election, while comfortable, fell just short of the constitutional supermajority needed, leaving the entire architecture of peace dependent on a referendum whose timing, content, and outcome remain genuinely uncertain - all while Russia has begun rebuilding ties with Baku and signaling its intent to play spoiler inside Armenia's domestic politics.

Background

The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict's roots run through the final years of the Soviet Union. In February 1988, the regional parliament of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast - a territory inside Soviet Azerbaijan but populated overwhelmingly by ethnic Armenians - voted to seek transfer to Soviet Armenia. As Moscow's central authority weakened, that vote escalated into open ethnic violence and, following the USSR's 1991 collapse, into the First Nagorno-Karabakh War. Armenian forces, with Yerevan's backing, secured not just Karabakh itself but seven surrounding Azerbaijani districts, displacing hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis and establishing the self-declared, internationally unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic - a frozen victory that defined the conflict's terms for the following quarter-century.

That frozen status quo shattered in autumn 2020. Azerbaijan, having spent the preceding years investing heavily in modern weaponry - most consequentially Turkish and Israeli-made drones that proved devastatingly effective against Armenian armor and fortified positions - launched the Second Karabakh War, a 44-day campaign that reclaimed most of the territory lost in the 1990s. The war ended with a Russian-brokered trilateral ceasefire statement signed November 9, 2020, by Putin, Aliyev, and Pashinyan, which deployed Russian peacekeepers to the remaining Armenian-controlled rump of Karabakh and, critically, included Article 9: a commitment to unblock all regional transport and communication links, including a route connecting mainland Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan through Armenia's Syunik province - the provision that would later become known as the Zangezur corridor dispute.

The 2020 ceasefire proved no more durable than the conflict's earlier frozen phases. Azerbaijan steadily tightened pressure on the remaining Karabakh Armenian population through 2022 and 2023, most consequentially through a blockade of the Lachin corridor - the single road connecting Karabakh to Armenia proper - that produced severe shortages of food, fuel, and medicine over nearly nine months. In September 2023, Azerbaijan launched a rapid, decisive military operation that overwhelmed the remaining Karabakh Armenian defense forces within roughly 24 hours, forcing the unrecognized republic's formal dissolution by January 2024. Virtually the entire ethnic Armenian population of Karabakh - more than 100,000 people - fled to Armenia in the following weeks, an exodus widely characterized by Armenian officials and many international observers as ethnic cleansing, though Azerbaijan has consistently rejected that framing.

Karabakh's elimination as a contested, populated territorial entity removed the conflict's original anchor - there was, suddenly, no longer a disputed enclave whose status needed negotiating, because there was no longer an Armenian population living there to negotiate over. This grim clarity, paradoxically, opened space for the broader peace process that followed: with Karabakh's status resolved by force rather than diplomacy, the remaining issues - border delimitation, security guarantees, and connectivity - became, for the first time in decades, genuinely negotiable bilateral questions rather than existential ones.

Current Situation

The Peace Agreement: Substance and Structure

The text finalized by both foreign ministries in March 2025 and initialed at the August 8 Washington summit is formally titled the Agreement on the Establishment of Peace and Interstate Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Its substance reflects a pattern that has drawn sustained criticism from Armenian opposition figures and diaspora organizations: Armenia has made nearly every concession Azerbaijan has sought, while Baku has offered comparatively little beyond an agreement to stop fighting.

Yerevan has accepted the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, the international mediation body that had nominally overseen the conflict since the 1990s but had failed to produce a settlement and had increasingly become, in Baku's framing, an obsolete relic of a conflict that - with Karabakh's depopulation - Azerbaijan now considers definitively resolved. The Minsk Group's formal closure took effect September 1, 2025, at both parties' joint request. Armenia has also made unilateral concessions on border delimitation, effectively abandoned any prospect of return for Karabakh's displaced Armenian population, and agreed to the withdrawal of Russian defensive forces from the Armenia-Azerbaijan border - a direct and deliberate downgrade of Moscow's historical security role in the country.

The single outstanding precondition is constitutional. Azerbaijan has insisted that Armenia cannot sign the final treaty while its constitution's preamble retains language referencing the 1990 Declaration of Independence, which in turn references a 1989 joint resolution on the "reunification" of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh - language Baku interprets as an enduring territorial claim, regardless of Karabakh's current depopulated and Azerbaijani-controlled status. Pashinyan has signaled willingness to pursue this change but cannot do so unilaterally; Armenian law requires a constitutional referendum, which in turn requires not just majority approval among those voting but support from at least 25 percent of the entire eligible electorate - a considerably higher bar than an ordinary parliamentary majority.

TRIPP: The Corridor That Redrew the Map

The peace framework's most geopolitically consequential element is the connectivity arrangement governing the route linking Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave. For decades, this Soviet-era rail and road corridor - running through Armenia's narrow Syunik province along the Iranian border - had remained closed, leaving Nakhchivan accessible from mainland Azerbaijan only via Iran or a long detour through Georgia and Turkey.

Under the framework unveiled at the August 2025 summit, the route - some 32 to 43 kilometers depending on the alignment ultimately chosen - will remain formally part of Armenian sovereign territory, operated under Armenian law. But the United States secured exclusive development and management rights for 99 years, with Washington expected to sublease operational control to a private consortium responsible for constructing rail, road, oil, gas, and fiber-optic infrastructure along the corridor. In a detail that speaks to the deal's unusual personalized branding, the route has been formally named the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, reportedly at Armenia's own suggestion - a calculated diplomatic gesture intended to deepen Washington's stake in the arrangement's success and durability.

This structure was specifically engineered to thread between two irreconcilable positions: Azerbaijan's demand for genuinely unimpeded transit - ideally without Armenian border or customs checks, which Yerevan viewed as tantamount to ceding sovereignty over its own territory - and Armenia's insistence on retaining full jurisdictional control, articulated through Pashinyan's competing "Crossroads of Peace" vision built on reciprocal, sovereignty-respecting connectivity. By inserting an American operator as the practical manager of the corridor, both sides found a face-saving formula: Azerbaijan gets a route it does not have to negotiate passage through with Armenian officials directly, and Armenia avoids the precedent of formally ceding extraterritorial control to Baku itself.

Implementation has proven slower than the political fanfare suggested. As of mid-2026, core practical questions - customs procedures, fee-sharing arrangements, and whether passport checks will be replaced by electronic monitoring systems Pashinyan has proposed as a compromise - remain unresolved. Construction on the Armenian side is expected to begin in 2026, but the full operational timeline remains contingent on these unresolved technical and political details, several of which touch directly on the sovereignty anxieties that made the corridor contentious in the first place.

The Armenian Domestic Crucible: June 2026 Elections

Armenia's first regularly scheduled parliamentary election since 2017 took place on June 7, 2026, and was explicitly framed - by Pashinyan himself - as a referendum on the peace process. His campaign slogan was direct: "go vote and stand for peace by supporting the Civil Contract party." The opposition, led by figures including former President Robert Kocharyan and businessman Samvel Karapetyan's Strong Armenia movement, countered that the peace agreement represented a one-sided capitulation, while notably failing to articulate any concrete alternative framework of their own.

The result was a genuine, if incomplete, victory for Pashinyan. Civil Contract secured approximately 49.8 percent of the popular vote, translating to roughly 64 seats in the new National Assembly - a comfortable governing majority and clear validation of his "Real Armenia" platform, which explicitly frames Armenia's future around its current, internationally recognized borders rather than historical territorial claims tied to Karabakh or the broader diaspora's "Historical Armenia" narrative. The result represented a modest decline of seven seats compared to the 2021 snap election, a shift Armenia analysts attribute less to declining support for Pashinyan personally than to the changed political context following Karabakh's loss and the accompanying national trauma.

Crucially, however, that 64-seat result falls just short of the constitutional supermajority Pashinyan needs to advance a referendum on the new constitution Azerbaijan has demanded as its final precondition for signing. This single arithmetic gap - control of parliament but not quite enough to trigger the constitutional process unilaterally - leaves the entire peace architecture in a genuinely precarious position. Pashinyan's options now include attempting to recruit defectors from opposition parties to cross the threshold, or calling a further snap election once the draft constitutional text is finalized, betting that a fresh mandate built specifically around the completed peace framework could deliver the missing seats.

Strategic Analysis

Russia's Forced Retreat - and Its Counter-Play

For Moscow, the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process represents one of the most significant erosions of its post-Soviet sphere of influence in years, arguably comparable in symbolic weight to its setbacks in Georgia and Ukraine. Russia's reluctance to intervene on Armenia's behalf during the 2020 war - despite Armenia's CSTO membership and decades of bilateral security cooperation - had already badly damaged Yerevan's confidence in Moscow as a reliable security guarantor. The August 2025 agreement formalizes that rupture: Armenia agreed to the withdrawal of Russian defensive forces from its border with Azerbaijan, a direct and symbolically loaded downgrade of a security relationship that had defined Armenian foreign policy since independence.

Moscow has not accepted this displacement passively. Through late 2025 and into 2026, Russia pursued a deliberate dual-track response: rebuilding its own bilateral relationship with Baku - a rapprochement visible by October 2025 after a period of unusually cold Russian-Azerbaijani relations - while simultaneously working to undermine Pashinyan's government from within Armenia's domestic politics. Russian President Vladimir Putin has reportedly tasked senior aide Sergei Kiriyenko specifically with advancing Russian interests inside Armenia, and Moscow has signaled willingness to use economic leverage, including suspending imports of certain Armenian agricultural products through its consumer protection regulator, as a pressure tool during the election campaign. Opposition figures, including Karapetyan, have floated rhetoric about closer integration with Russia "on the Belarus model," giving Moscow a domestic political vehicle even without direct intervention.

This is a textbook case of a regional power responding to strategic displacement not through direct confrontation, which Russia's Ukraine-focused military posture makes largely unavailable, but through patient political interference aimed at reversing the outcome through Armenia's own democratic process - a far cheaper and more deniable tool than the military leverage Moscow can no longer credibly deploy in the South Caucasus.

Iran's Anxious Red Line

Iran's objection to the TRIPP arrangement reflects a strategic anxiety that runs deeper than simple regional rivalry. The corridor in question runs directly along Iran's northern border with Armenia, meaning any American operational presence there - even nominally commercial rather than military - represents, from Tehran's perspective, a direct extension of US infrastructure and influence to Iran's own frontier, a development Iranian officials have characterized as deeply threatening regardless of how the corridor's governance is formally structured.

Iran's specific concern is less about the corridor's stated commercial purpose and more about precedent and optics: any arrangement that visibly transfers practical control over a border-adjacent strip of territory from Yerevan to an American-linked operator sets a template Tehran fears could expand over time, particularly given the historically close Iran-Armenia relationship that has functioned as one of Iran's few stable, non-adversarial regional partnerships. Iran has also expressed concern that closing off its own role in regional transit - historically, Iran has served as one of the few alternative routes connecting Armenia to the wider world given the closed Turkish and Azerbaijani borders - further isolates it from emerging Caucasus connectivity architecture being built explicitly to bypass both Iran and Russia.

Turkey's Calculated Endorsement

Turkey occupies a distinctive position in this realignment: a strong beneficiary of the corridor's strategic logic, but one wary of seeing Ankara's traditional primacy over Azerbaijan policy diluted by Washington's new role as the indispensable mediator and infrastructure guarantor. Turkey has consistently supported any arrangement that de-isolates Nakhchivan and strengthens overland connectivity to Central Asia via Azerbaijan, and the corridor's completion would hand Ankara the shortest available overland route to Central Asian markets and energy supplies - a long-standing strategic objective tracing back to Turkey's broader Pan-Turkic and Middle Corridor connectivity ambitions.

At the same time, Turkey has taken modest, deliberate steps toward its own normalization with Armenia, a process explicitly tied to the broader Armenia-Azerbaijan settlement given Ankara's alignment with Baku throughout the conflict. The implementation of limited visa facilitation for official passport holders, effective January 1, 2026, represents an early, low-cost confidence-building signal - one Turkey will likely expand only once the underlying Armenia-Azerbaijan treaty is formally signed, giving Ankara additional leverage to encourage Yerevan toward completing the constitutional process Baku has demanded.

The American Calculation: A Permanent Foothold

For Washington, the Armenia-Azerbaijan deal represents an unusually clean strategic win, achieved through diplomacy rather than military commitment, in a region the United States has historically treated as peripheral to its core interests. The 99-year development lease over TRIPP gives the US a durable, institutionalized presence at the southern entrance to the Russian Federation and along Iran's northern border - a position that, even without a military dimension, grants Washington sustained influence over a critical node connecting Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, precisely the kind of "Middle Corridor" connectivity architecture that reduces regional dependence on both Russian and Iranian transit infrastructure.

This is a calculated bet that economic and infrastructure leverage can substitute for the kind of costly, open-ended security commitments that have defined American engagement in comparable strategic regions. Whether that bet pays off depends heavily on whether the broader peace architecture survives the unresolved constitutional referendum - an outcome over which Washington, despite its central brokering role, ultimately has limited direct control, given that it hinges on Armenia's own internal democratic process.

Global Impact

Reshaping the Middle Corridor

The TRIPP corridor's completion would fill a critical missing link in the broader "Middle Corridor" - the trans-Caspian trade route connecting China and Central Asia to Europe via Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Turkey, bypassing both Russia and Iran entirely. Western governments have actively promoted Middle Corridor development as a strategic hedge, reducing Central Asian states' transport dependence on Russian infrastructure in the aftermath of sanctions-driven disruptions to traditional Russia-transit routes following the Ukraine war. A functioning Zangezur/TRIPP corridor would meaningfully increase this route's reliability and throughput, directly serving both European and Central Asian interests in diversified, non-Russian, non-Iranian trade infrastructure - while also intersecting with China's own Belt and Road Initiative ambitions in the region, giving Beijing an interest in the corridor's stability even without direct involvement in its governance.

Energy Security Implications

Azerbaijan's role as a significant natural gas supplier to Europe via the Southern Gas Corridor - with the EU having sought to expand Azerbaijani gas deliveries toward 20 billion cubic meters annually as part of its broader effort to diversify away from Russian energy following 2022 - gives the broader South Caucasus stabilization process direct relevance to European energy security. A durable Armenia-Azerbaijan peace, paired with improved regional connectivity infrastructure, supports the broader logic of reduced European energy dependence on Russia that has defined EU strategic thinking since the start of the Ukraine war.

A Template for US-Brokered Regional Settlement

Beyond its specific South Caucasus implications, the Armenia-Azerbaijan deal offers a notable template the Trump administration has appeared eager to replicate elsewhere: using direct presidential-level mediation, paired with a tangible American commercial and infrastructure stake, to convert frozen or stalled conflicts into negotiated settlements. The approach's apparent success here - achieving in months what decades of OSCE-led, multilateral diplomacy could not - may shape how Washington approaches other protracted regional disputes going forward, even as the Armenian constitutional impasse demonstrates the limits of externally brokered settlements that ultimately depend on domestic political processes Washington cannot directly control.

Risk Assessment

High-Probability Risks

Continued delay in final treaty signature: Given Pashinyan's shortfall of a constitutional supermajority, further delay in completing the referendum process - likely extending into 2027 as some analysts have already predicted - is highly probable, leaving the treaty in its current initialed-but-unsigned limbo for an extended period.
Intensified Russian interference: Having already demonstrated willingness to use economic pressure and political backing for opposition figures, continued and likely escalating Russian efforts to derail the constitutional referendum specifically are highly likely.
Slow, contested TRIPP implementation: Given unresolved customs, fee-sharing, and border-control questions, continued delays in the corridor's practical operationalization beyond current construction timelines are likely.

Moderate-Probability Risks

Referendum failure: Given the unusually high threshold requiring 25 percent of the entire eligible electorate's support, combined with low public trust and likely Russian-backed opposition mobilization, a referendum defeat - even if Pashinyan eventually secures the votes to call one - remains a genuine possibility that would directly imperil the entire peace framework.
Localized border incidents: Despite the broader diplomatic progress, the Armenia-Azerbaijan border remains incompletely demarcated in several sections, creating ongoing potential for localized clashes, particularly around contested or ambiguous sections near Syunik.
Iranian countermeasures: Tehran's strong objections to the TRIPP arrangement raise a moderate risk of Iranian efforts - diplomatic, economic, or otherwise - to complicate or delay the corridor's implementation, given its direct proximity to Iran's own border.

Lower-Probability but High-Impact Risks

Azerbaijani military action over Syunik: Should the peace process collapse entirely following a failed referendum or a change in Armenian government, the risk - explicitly flagged by EU analysts - of Azerbaijan seeking to establish corridor access by force rather than negotiation would rise substantially, though this remains a lower-probability scenario given the current trajectory of relative diplomatic progress.
Full Russian-orchestrated government change in Armenia: While Moscow is actively working to undermine Pashinyan, a complete reversal - bringing a genuinely pro-Russian government to power that abandons the peace process entirely - remains unlikely in the near term given Pashinyan's demonstrated electoral resilience and the absence of a clearly unified opposition alternative.
Broader US-Russia confrontation over the South Caucasus: Despite Moscow's clear displeasure at its declining regional influence, direct US-Russia confrontation specifically over the Caucasus remains unlikely, given Russia's continued strategic prioritization of Ukraine and its preference for indirect political rather than military pushback in this theater.

Future Scenarios

Scenario Analysis - the following projections are illustrative simulations based on current trajectories, not confirmed events.

Scenario One: Delayed but Eventual Treaty Signature (Most Likely)

Pashinyan spends the following twelve to eighteen months building toward a constitutional referendum, potentially through a combination of opposition defections and a carefully timed snap election built specifically around the completed peace framework. The referendum, when held, passes narrowly - clearing both the majority and 25 percent eligible-voter thresholds - allowing final treaty signature sometime in 2027. TRIPP construction proceeds in parallel but at a measured pace, with full operational status achieved only after the treaty's formal signature resolves remaining sovereignty-related ambiguities.

Scenario Two: Referendum Failure and Extended Limbo

Sustained Russian-backed opposition mobilization, combined with persistent low public trust in constitutional change driven by what many Armenians perceive as externally imposed terms, produces a referendum defeat. The peace agreement remains permanently in its initialed-but-unsigned state, normalizing as a de facto rather than de jure peace - fighting does not resume, trade and limited connectivity continue improving incrementally, but the formal treaty, and the corridor's full legal certainty, never materializes, leaving an indefinitely unresolved diplomatic limbo.

Scenario Three: Accelerated Completion

Pashinyan successfully recruits sufficient opposition defectors or calls a further snap election that delivers a constitutional supermajority faster than current projections suggest, driven by continued strong public support for the broader peace dividend - improved trade, opened borders, and tangible economic benefits from early TRIPP construction activity. A referendum passes comfortably in late 2026 or early 2027, the treaty is signed, and the corridor reaches substantial completion ahead of current timelines, cementing the South Caucasus realignment more durably than currently anticipated.

Scenario Four: Renewed Crisis

A combination of unresolved border demarcation disputes, Azerbaijani frustration with the pace of constitutional progress, and intensifying Russian destabilization efforts inside Armenia combine to produce a serious crisis - potentially including renewed Azerbaijani military pressure on Syunik or a genuine political rupture in Yerevan that brings a more Russia-aligned government to power, reversing the broader trajectory of the past two years and reopening the South Caucasus as an active, rather than de-escalating, conflict zone.

Intelligence Forecast

Based on current trajectories, Global Chanakya's assessment for the next twelve to eighteen months centers on four core judgments.

First, the constitutional referendum process - not any remaining bilateral Armenia-Azerbaijan dispute - is now the single most important variable determining whether this peace process reaches formal completion. The substantive negotiation between Yerevan and Baku is effectively finished; what remains is an Armenian domestic political and legal hurdle.

Second, Russia will continue intensifying indirect pressure on Armenia's domestic politics rather than pursuing direct confrontation, using economic leverage and support for opposition figures as its primary tools, given its limited capacity for more assertive intervention while the Ukraine war continues to dominate its strategic bandwidth.

Third, TRIPP's practical implementation will continue to lag behind its political symbolism, with genuine operational completion unlikely before the broader treaty's formal signature resolves the underlying sovereignty and customs-control questions that remain unsettled.

Fourth, the broader trajectory of US influence in the South Caucasus will continue strengthening regardless of the referendum's specific timeline, given Washington's now-institutionalized stake in TRIPP and the demonstrated diplomatic capital invested in the broader settlement - a structural shift unlikely to reverse even if the constitutional process extends well beyond current projections.

Final Strategic Takeaway

The Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process represents something genuinely rare in contemporary geopolitics: a decades-old, seemingly intractable conflict that has moved closer to actual resolution than at any point since the Soviet collapse, achieved not through patient multilateral diplomacy but through a concentrated burst of American presidential-level dealmaking that reshaped the region's underlying power architecture in the process.

What makes this case so instructive is precisely what makes it fragile: a settlement built on one side's near-total concessions and another side's transactional patience will only hold if the conceding side's domestic politics can absorb the weight of what was conceded - and Armenia's June 2026 election proved that absorption capacity exists, but only barely.

Pashinyan has bet his political future, and arguably his country's strategic orientation for a generation, on convincing Armenian voters that peace through concession is preferable to indefinite confrontation with a militarily and economically stronger neighbor backed by Turkey. The June election validated that bet more than it refuted it - but the missing seats for a constitutional supermajority mean the final word has not yet been spoken. Azerbaijan, Turkey, the United States, and the European Union are all, in different ways, invested in Pashinyan succeeding. Russia is invested in him failing. Iran watches anxiously from the sidelines, calculating how much of its own regional position this realignment ultimately costs. The South Caucasus, for the first time in over three decades, stands genuinely closer to lasting peace than to renewed war - but "closer" is not the same as "there," and the gap between the two will be measured, ultimately, not in diplomatic communiqués but in a single Armenian referendum whose date has not yet even been set.

Eurasia

Intelligence Reports & Briefings

Armenia-Azerbaijan: Peace Deal's Fragile New Reality