Opinion: Armenia needs a complete diplomatic reset

By Vartan Oskanian, Armenia's former foreign minister

By all logic, the so-called “Zangezur Corridor” should no longer be a topic of negotiation—let alone an existential threat to Armenia’s sovereignty. Its origins lie in the November 9, 2020 ceasefire statement, which referenced a passage through Armenia, essentially mirroring the Lachin Corridor that once connected Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh.

But today, there is no Lachin Corridor. There is no Nagorno-Karabakh. There is no Armenian population left in its historic homeland. The mirror arrangement that once justified Azerbaijani demands should have collapsed under the weight of its own irrelevance. The reason it has not is the total failure of Armenian diplomacy.

Instead of forcefully rejecting the corridor narrative the moment Nagorno-Karabakh was ethnically cleansed, Pashinyan and his administration legitimized it through silence, confusion, and dangerous concessions. Worse still, Pashinyan himself reinforced Azerbaijan’s narrative—repeatedly declaring, after the fact, that “Nagorno-Karabakh has always been part of Azerbaijan.” That single sentence did as much damage as any military or diplomatic defeat. It erased not only Armenia’s diplomatic footing but also the legal and moral basis for resisting further Azerbaijani demands, including one for a sovereign corridor through Syunik.

Rather than counter this narrative, Armenia’s pundits and political elite amplified it until it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Analysts spoke breathlessly of Syunik as the linchpin of global strategy—imagining it as a vital artery for Russian sanctions evasion, China’s Belt and Road Initiative, Turkey’s pan-Turkic ambitions, and East–West trade routes. In doing so, they handed Azerbaijan precisely what it wanted: a geopolitical pretext for a bilateral land grab.

The truth is that the so-called Zangezur Corridor is not a strategic necessity for Russia, China, or the West. It is a narrow, self-serving demand by Azerbaijan to gain unimpeded access to its exclave, Nakhichevan. Every sovereign nation has the right to negotiate transportation access with its neighbors. What Azerbaijan seeks, however, is something far more dangerous: a corridor with extraterritorial status—where Armenian law, customs authority, and security presence would be excluded. No sovereign state would accept such terms. And no competent leadership would allow the issue to remain on the table.

A functioning foreign policy team—one that defends national interests rather than apologizing for losing them—could have defused this narrative from the outset. This issue could have been framed as one of mutual reopening of regional communications based on sovereignty and reciprocity.

If this government had any strategic sense, it would have buried the corridor narrative the moment the Lachin Corridor became obsolete. Instead, Pashinyan’s incoherence—and his refusal to defend Armenia’s fundamental interests—has transformed a non-issue into a national crisis.

What Armenia needs now is a complete diplomatic reset. The corridor issue must be reframed as part of a broader, reciprocal process to open communications across the South Caucasus—grounded in full respect for sovereignty and mutual jurisdiction. Anything less is not diplomacy. It is unilateral and unacceptable compromise.