Washington continues to sweet-talk Armenian ears Instant noodles

US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs James O'Brien made new intriguing statements during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting on July 30. To be precise, some of these statements are not new, but they remain interesting due to the admirable persistence with which they are delivered.

For example, there's this thesis: "Central Asian countries are incredibly rich, and right now their only options to the global markets fundamentally are through Russia or China. If we can open up a road that goes through Azerbaijan or Armenia, then they will have access to the global market and much less dependence on Russia and China."

Firstly, it's somewhat surprising to hear the phrase "through Armenia or Azerbaijan," as if they were separate options. Given the geographical realities, which we won’t explore in detail here, transportation routes cannot pass through Armenia while bypassing Azerbaijan. Achieving this would be challenging, even if U.S.-Iran relations were to miraculously improve. Establishing routes through the Armenian-Iranian border and then across southern Armenia to the north involves significant costs due to the region's difficult mountainous terrain. The only viable routes for building railways and roads in Armenia are along the Iran-Armenia border (known as the Zangezur Corridor) and then through the Nakhchivan territory.

Assuming this is a slip, typo, or translator’s error, let's address more fundamental issues. The American diplomat seems to misunderstand the primary purpose of the Middle Corridor. This corridor is mainly intended to serve as a transit route for Chinese goods to Europe, with Central Asian exports being a secondary consideration. Thus, the Zangezur Corridor is crucial for integrating exports from China, not isolating them.

Another point to consider is that even if we look at the corridor in terms of Central Asian exports alone, the Zangezur Corridor, if it is an alternative to the Russian route at all, is unlikely to serve as a substitute for the Chinese route. Central Asian countries use the Chinese route to export goods to other Asian countries, so the "Armenian option" doesn’t really provide a viable alternative in this context.

It seems that in promoting this very convoluted idea of "Central Asian exports through Armenia to bypass Russia and China," O’Brien, to put it bluntly, is just creating a smokescreen. The question is—who is he trying to deceive?

Without overcomplicating things, let’s assume this all boils down to the upcoming U.S. election. Clearly, as Election Day approaches, the Democratic administration will make increasingly bold statements to win over the Armenian diaspora.

Similarly, the following convoluted statement should be understood in this context: “The two sides have agreed to border demarcation process. They have agreed on what the lines are and there are territories that each side still occupies, according to the line they have agreed will probably end up going back the other way and the highlands are of particular interest. But that’s a process that the two sides are working on. We have been very clear that any adjustment in the border that they have agreed is the one they should end up with unless the two sides agree that they don’t. There is a peace agreement under negotiation that the first the border demarcation to another channel in the peace process.”   

The most astonishing thing is how Washington is trying to "insert itself" into the delimitation and demarcation process. Since the beginning of the year, both sides have presented progress in this direction as the result of direct bilateral negotiations. This can be seen as the hallmark of the peace process, demonstrating that, despite all the tensions, Baku and Yerevan are committed to moving forward where possible. And here, the Americans have found nothing better than to try and take credit for themselves. Incidentally, this fact further indicates that in areas where the Americans have genuinely tried to push their (and Armenian) interests, they have achieved nothing.

Finally, it is worth noting O'Brien's comments that the United States is working to create conditions for Armenia to abandon its allied relations with Russia. "A significant part of the Armenian population wants to move away from Russia. So we [American authorities] create the conditions for this," O'Brien noted.

In terms of clarity, there are no complaints here. We do not support Armenia shifting away from Russia towards the U.S., nor do we support its dependence on Moscow. We advocate for an independent Armenia, minimally influenced by foreign overseers. However, O’Brien’s words stand out as his clearest and most straightforward statement amidst a series of rather "vague" declarations.

So, the Democratic pre-election message to the Armenian diaspora is this: we are fostering peace in the South Caucasus, particularly by achieving progress in the delimitation and demarcation process; we will involve Armenia in regional projects, significantly enriching it; and we are doing all this as part of a program to reduce Armenia’s dependence on Russia. The specifics of how this all fits together and what America has actually achieved are secondary concerns.