A letter regarding the forced resignation of Gzoyan, director of HCTI

April 9, 2026

Committee on Academic Freedom

Armenia:

N.G. Nikol Pashinyan

Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia

Your Excellency,

We are writing to you on behalf of the Committee on Academic Freedom of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA) to express our concern regarding reports of the forced resignation of Dr. Edita Gzoyan, director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute Foundation (AGMIF).

We urge his immediate reinstatement and demand that your office guarantee the academic integrity of the institute.

MESA was founded in 1966 with the goal of promoting scholarly research and teaching on the Middle East and North Africa. As a leading organization in the field, MESA publishes the “International Journal of Middle East Studies” and has around 2,800 members worldwide. MESA is committed to promoting academic freedom and freedom of expression both in the region and in the context of research in the region in North America and elsewhere.

Dr. Gzoyan, who was elected to his position in 2024 by the HCTI Board of Trustees, has played a key leadership role in promoting new scholarly work on the Armenian Genocide, modernizing the museum, and integrating young Armenian scholars into the global community of Genocide scholars.

His own scientific works on the transportation of children during the Armenian Genocide were published in leading European and American periodicals. He drew positive international attention to HCTI.

Therefore, we are concerned about press releases and communications with Armenian colleagues, according to which Dr. Gzoyan was forced to resign on February 10, 2026, after the official visit of US Vice President JD Vance to HCTI.

During that visit, he presented several of the Institute’s publications, including a paper on early 20th-century American press coverage of massacres and attacks against Transcaucasian Armenians that mention Nagorno-Karabakh, and accompanied Mr. Vance and his wife, Usha Bala Vance, to the museum and Armenian Genocide Memorial.

During the press conference on March 12, 2026, you mentioned that you demanded his resignation due to the inclusion of the Institute’s books on Nagorno Karabakh, calling those books “provocative” and contrary to Armenia’s foreign policy. Then, you bypassed the established procedure and appointed one of your staff members to the position of director, and replaced the members of the independent board of trustees with political allies.

We understand that Armenia is in a difficult and difficult situation, striving to end the multi-year conflict with Azerbaijan and reach a normalization of relations. However, erasure of historical memory cannot be caused by short-term political needs.

One of the goals of the establishment of HCTI was to confront the denial of the Armenian Genocide.

Protecting the academic freedom of scientists associated with one of the world’s leading research institutions and an important scientific resource dedicated to the study of the history and memory of the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire, HCTI, is essential.

We ask you to immediately restore Dr. Gzoyan to his position.

We urge the Government of Armenia to act quickly to remedy what appears to be an unjustified interference with scientific independence, and to restore the confidence of the international academic community in the institutional integrity of HCTI and Armenia’s commitment to academic freedom and fundamental human rights.

Հարգանքներով՝

Osama Makdisi

President of MESA

Professor, University of California, Berkeley

Judith E. Tucker

Chairman of the Committee on Academic Freedom

Professor Emeritus, Georgetown University

Պատճենը՝

Zhanna Andreasyan, RA Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports

Anahit Manasyan, RA Human Rights Defender

Michael O’Flaherty, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS)

—

The courts of RA recognize Romanos Petrosyan’s orders to terminate the employment contracts of the employees of “HETC” PB company as invalid.

As a result of the invalidation of dismissal orders for about three dozen employees, in favor of the employees, the amount subject to confiscation reaches hundreds of millions of drams, which will directly harm the owners of the company.

Let’s also remind that the “Tashir” group of companies financed the excess part of the tariff-compensated salary fund, in the amount of about 12 billion AMD, from its own funds in 2016-2025.

At the moment, the company’s salary fund is also not within the limits of the tariff compensatory amount and is partially financed at the expense of the funds of the “Tashir” group.

It turns out that the member of the KP board is making pre-election bribes of the KP at the expense of the owners of the HEP, without agreeing with them.

It is already clear what purposes the HEC will serve…

HEC-Supervisory Committee

—

The NGO in the National Creative Union will again receive a grant from the Ministry of Education and Culture. This is the fifth in the number of this h/c the grant from the Ministry.

With around 40 million drams (39 million 999,600 drams), the organization will once again hold the international conference titled “Images of memory: the latest technologies for preservation and restoration of handwritten and printed written heritage” in Matenadaran from April 27 to May 2.

Let’s note that the “National Creative Union” JSC, which, according to the data of the register of legal entities, has been in existence since 2006, has only been under the auspices of KGSMN grants since 2022, having already received 4 grants.

By the way, last year the amount of the grant was 40 million drams, in 2024 – 49 million drams. the goal was again the same seminar.

There were publications in the press about the former deputy minister of “National Creator” and KGSMS, then the director of Matenadaran. About the connection with Ara Khzmalyan.

Let’s remind: Khzmalyan was the deputy minister of KGSMS from 2019, and from July 2023 – the director of Matenadaran.

But these are not the only commitments that have been placed on the shoulders of the young and energetic Khzmalyan. in April 2025 became famous about the formation of the new Public Council.

Pashinyan announced that he submitted the candidacy of the president of the Public Council from among the 45 members of the Public Council elected in the prescribed manner to the consideration of the Government of the Republic of Armenia.

“Arayik Khzmalyan was appointed as the chairman of the Public Council by the government’s decision N 389-A of April 9, 2025. As of April 10, 2025, the Public Council is considered constituted,” the statement said.

This is how Khzmalyan’s new mission began, for example, he began to go with Pashinyan and the council created by Pashinyan and record what is not recorded by people who, for example, do not consider the Kirants wall a symbol of peace.

—

About a month ago, South Korean travel blogger YangMin Skies, who has been to 129 countries of the world, was also visited by Azerbaijan. occupied Armenian Artsakh. He published a video on his YouTube channel about the visit, Artsakh and the situation there, sharing his personal impressions.

In his video, he talks about how Armenians lived in Artsakh for centuries, and in 2023, all of Artsakh was emptied for one day, Armenians were forced to leave their homes. In the video, he also emphasizes that the Armenian presence in Artsakh is being systematically destroyed, structures are being demolished or rebuilt, place names are being changed, everything that reminds of the former residents is consistently disappearing.

The South Korean blogger’s video shocked many people, many witnessed what Azerbaijan is doing in Artsakh: it destroys and modifies all Armenian monuments, demolishes cemeteries, churches.

Artsakh cultural heritage ombudsman, Caucasus expert Hovik Avanesov positively assesses that a foreigner presents what he saw with his own eyes to the world, but regrets that all this does not receive a proper response from the civilized world.

“No international organization responded to the incidents of vandalism in this video, although we did not expect any response from any international organization. But the positive thing is that that video received a great response on various social platforms.

One thing is clear here, that these videos will be used as needed, they can contribute to raising the level of awareness among the international community. That video shows a picture close to reality, but what we saw in the video is a very small part of the devastation that Azerbaijan has carried out in Artsakh.” of 168.am Hovik Avanesov said in a conversation with

According to our interlocutor, Azerbaijan has caused greater destruction in Shushi, Stepanakert, and it is understandable that bloggers visiting Artsakh and foreigners in general are being watched by representatives of the Azerbaijani power structures, not allowing them to make many video shoots in Artsakh.

“All these are facts and may be useful for us in the future, in case of starting legal proceedings, these and similar videos will be used. First, we record the cases of vandalism with satellite photos, the second is the Azerbaijani media, from which the cases of destroyed monuments in Artsakh are highlighted. There were cases when the Azerbaijani media broadcast live how they destroy the monuments of Artsakh, such as the National Assembly, the Foreign Ministry, the building of the Union of Freedom Fighters, etc., added Hovik Avanesov.

According to his definition, there are two mechanisms to curb the cases of vandalism carried out by Azerbaijan in Artsakh, in one case the effectiveness can be 50-60 percent, and in the other case, it will have more than 100 percent results.

The first mechanism, according to him, is to start a legal process against Azerbaijan with these cases, also against the persons who carry out vandalism, this is possible, because these persons constantly film themselves to show their “heroism”.

“The second restraining factor will be if we return to the status quo of Artsakh, we are talking about the complete de-occupation of Artsakh and any Azerbaijani presence there. In this case, Azerbaijan will stop its vandalism, at this moment, of course, all this is not possible, but the work in this direction should not be stopped,” emphasized Hovik Avanesov.

It should be noted that earlier Hovik Avanesov told us that from September 2020 to September 2025, more than 800 cases of vandalism carried out by Azerbaijan in Artsakh have already been recorded. It is only known that Azerbaijan vandalizes Armenian monuments in villages and regional centers on a large scale, destroys entire villages and churches.

—

The people of Artsakh will not go after these authorities, they will not vote for the government of Nikol Pashinyan. About this 168 TVof Revue announced on the air of the program Metaxe Hakobyan, deputy of Artsakh National Assemblyspeaking about the participation of Armenians forcibly displaced from Artsakh in the National Assembly elections.

The deputy confirms the information that the current authorities of Armenia actually hinder the participation of Artsakh Armenians in the parliamentary elections scheduled for June 7. According to Hakobyan, in 2020-2023  Of the more than 120,000 Artsakh Armenians subjected to ethnic cleansing and forced deportation by Azerbaijan in the occupied Artsakh Republic as a result of Azerbaijani military aggressions, about 35,000 have received RA citizenship, and 22-23,000 of them are adults.

“Actually, they have the right to vote that much. Yes, they are causing obstacles, because recently they are trying to clarify that, as if they are technical problems, the volume is large. There is no such thing. They are intentional obstacles, because if there was no online registration until January 1, people go, they were waiting in passport departments, there are people who registered in October-November, but until now they have not received an answer from the relevant authorities, even though the procedure should have been accelerated for Artsakh citizens. It became online from January 1, and the chaos began, because some of the people of Artsakh, elderly people living in remote, border villages, are not even able to register at all,” explained Metaxe Hakobyan.

The deputy of the “Justice” faction of the Artsakh National Assembly emphasizes that the obstacles are unequivocal. “No matter how much they try to show that the people of Artsakh are in their ranks, it is not so. The people of Artsakh will not choose them.”

Metakse Hakobyan also expressed his displeasure that recently in the opposition field they started to pay tribute to the saying “former-present” or “old-new”.

“People, is that it? Now I want to ask a question to those expressing such thoughts: am I past or present? I was elected a deputy of the Artsakh National Assembly in 2020, before that I was the deputy director of the Assessment and Testing Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Artsakh and I have never been involved in politics. I started doing politics when I already saw danger. I started to know the “old people” they imagined little by little during the course of the war, I saw many of them alive after the displacement of 2023.

Now the question is: am I ancient or present? How do they imagine all that? It is strange that at least 50-60 year olds say such a thing, because they have always been in the political field. I have been saying since 2018 that these authorities have come to hand over Artsakh, and we must fight against these authorities, and I follow that idea to this day. It is very important for the opposition field to confirm today that the people of Artsakh will not follow these authorities. Let’s put 10-20 people aside. unfortunately, there are such people from Artsakh. But don’t divide the people of Artsakh.”

Speaking in this context, the famous Putin-Pashinyan meeting held last week and the meeting between them in the Kremlin conversation, in particular, about Putin’s mention of the subject of Artsakh, Metakse Hakobyan notes that in 2020 According to the tripartite declaration of November 9, adopted at the end of the forty-four-day war, all three parties had commitments: Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Russian peacekeeping force.

“Let’s leave aside what the president of the Russian Federation says. Specifically, the Russian peacekeepers in Artsakh told us that after 2022 they did not know what they would do. Their mandate was not clearly defined in any situation.

We have many questions for the Russian side, the answer to which we have not yet received, because there was no dialogue in this regard. There are those questions, and we will get their answers one day, but the main actor and beneficiary, in fact, at that time were the authorities of Armenia, it was Armenia, it was Artsakh. Detail-by-detail clarification was important for our side. We should clarify that. Was that clarification made? No? If you are the honest and sincere prime minister of the “people”, why would you stand up and say:

“People, you know, Russia doesn’t inspire confidence in me, Russia doesn’t go for clarification. What should we do, people, should we accept this or not?” Then maybe Artsakh would have responded, maybe the decision would have been different, or maybe after that announcement, Russia would have clarified the mandate, and we would have understood what will happen in the future. So, it is very easy to make accusations, but when there is a problem in your house, when people are fighting each other in your house, you don’t go, you bring your neighbor to separate you. That problem was in our house, and basically, the authorities of Armenia wanted to smash our head. That’s how it works. And for that, they should have brought the neighbor, who should have just looked from the side, and then when he saw that no, it is not possible to settle all this, he would leave and go,” commented Metakse Hakobyan.

Full interview in the video.

—

Lawyer Ara Zohrabyan reports. “As you know, RA investigative committee (investigator Ara Avagyan) on 14.02.2026 made a decision and applied the prohibition of absence to the Catholicos of All Armenians as a preventive measure.
Due to that ban, as well as the refusal of permission to travel to Georgia by the investigator, the Catholicos of All Armenians could not participate in the holy ceremony of the funeral of Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia Ilia II.

The said decision of the investigator was appealed to the superior prosecutor. RA General Prosecutor’s Office (prosecutor Khachatur Galstyan) made a decision to reject the complaint. After the prosecutor’s refusal, a complaint was submitted to the court.

Today, 10.04.2026, the criminal court of the first instance of general jurisdiction of the city of Yerevan (judge Ani Danielyan) made a decision to satisfy the appeal of the defender of the Catholicos of All Armenians. Based on the court’s decision, the restraining order applied to the Catholicos of All Armenians is subject to cancellation.”

—

Against the background of the announced Iran-US ceasefire, information was circulated, particularly about the role of Turkey, especially the country’s National Intelligence Organization (MIT). Turkish sources said that even before the war, the intelligence structure of the country established intensive contacts with all sides of the conflict, and after the war, it was already in constant contact with both the American-Israeli and Iranian sides.

In addition, during this period, Turkish intelligence “cooperated” with Iraq, Pakistan, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Great Britain, Germany, France.

Furthermore, Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization used its conduits and connections with the IRGC to pass Turkish proposals and messages to Iran regarding a cease-fire.

It should be noted that there is also clear information about the serious role played by Turkish intelligence and the former head of Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization, now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hakan Fidan, in preventing Kurdish and other armed groups from entering Iran.

For their part, perhaps taking all this into account, Israeli circles have noticed that there is a high probability that Turkey will become the “new monster” of the region amid the weakening of Iran, because Ankara is pursuing a policy that can harm the interests of the United States, NATO and regional security.

How realistic or true these claims in Israel’s political science and expert circles are, and why they exist, is open to speculation. On the other hand, during the military operations against Iran, Turkey mainly targeted Israel and not so much the USA, which was also understandable and expected.

On these and other issues 168.amhas talked Analytical “Base”. of the center expert Shiraz Khachatryan with

– Naturally, in the background of the Iran-US war, a new balance of power will be formed in the region, where the relative weakening of Iran will create a vacuum of new influence. States with regional ambitions immediately try to fill that vacuum, and Turkey is one of the most active among them, if not the most active.

Ankara is consistently trying to strengthen its presence in the region in all intelligence, military and political directions, especially in areas where Iran is temporarily weakened.

In this case, Israel’s concern is logical, for it Turkey is a problem not because it is a direct opponent at the moment, but because Ankara is rapidly becoming an independent player, unpredictable and not fully controllable, even for the West. If we don’t go into the historical details of the tense Turkish-Israeli relations, then the situation is quite classic: there is a redistribution of power in the region, where Turkey is gradually strengthening its positions, and Israel is trying to restrain this process.

– What changes will the increase in the role of Turkey, which already has an influential presence in the region, lead to?

– The question is extensive, but if we formulate it briefly and with axes, then the picture is approximately like this. Turkey’s role in the region continues to grow, Russia is no longer the former monopoly actor in the South Caucasus, and here the logic of creating new channels with Western and American support is practically aimed at bypassing both Russian and Iranian limiting influence. In this sense, Turkey is trying step by step to replace Moscow, becoming the main organizing force in the region. In the case of Russia, it is clear that it will not return to its previous position of absolute control. But this does not mean that he was irreversibly pushed out of the region. Moscow will try to remain in the Caucasus as a balancing and sometimes disruptive force, using its remaining leverage: security ties, energy dependencies, bilateral agreements and crisis management experience.

In other words, the role of Russia has decreased, but it has not disappeared. it moves more from the “monopoly controller” model to the “balancing player” model.

For Azerbaijan, the strengthening of Turkey is both an opportunity and a long-term risk. It is an opportunity because Baku enters deeper into the key architecture of the Middle Corridor, becoming an important energy and logistics hub in the South Caucasus. But the problem is that Azerbaijan also has strategic relations with Israel and Russia at the same time, and the need for a complex balance may arise here. If Turkey, for example, enters into a tougher competition with Israel or some centers of the West, Baku will have to make a more difficult maneuver without losing either Ankara or Tel Aviv. In other words, Turkey strengthens Azerbaijan, but also makes its foreign policy more complex and under multi-vector pressures.

And for the USA, which came to the region, the growing role of Turkey has a double significance. On the one hand, it is useful because Turkey helps contain the influence of Russia and, to a certain extent, Iran, and also contributes to the promotion of communication projects that correspond to Western economic and strategic interests. On the other hand, Ankara never operates entirely according to American rules. Turkey is trying to advance its own agenda, its own regional ambitions and sometimes shows quite contradictory behavior towards the western circles. In short, we are in the process of forming a new competitive balance in the region. Turkey is getting stronger, Russia is retreating, but still remains in the game, Azerbaijan is winning, and the USA is trying to take advantage of the situation. The most important thing in this whole restructuring is how much Armenia will be able to benefit from these regional reforms.

– In the background of all this, what developments can be expected around the TRIPP project, can there be revisions, and how much has the US interest been preserved in relation to this or about it?

– TRIPP’s competitiveness largely depends not only on what the project offers to Armenia and Azerbaijan, but also on how much Iran continues to be a regional “obstacle” or counterweight to American strategy. If we consider a theoretical worst-case scenario, for example, if Iran loses its infrastructure and political control as a result of a long war, the US may reevaluate the priority of this project passing through the South Caucasus. In that case, TRIPP can be considered not so much as an urgent geopolitical tool, but more as a backup or long-term logistical option in the context of competition between Russia and the common Eurasian channels.

– There is an article on this topic the other day publish Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Zohrab Mnatsakanyan, where he addressed several issues. First, according to him, new trade corridors inevitably redistribute influence, and that Russia and Iran, which derive economic and strategic weight from existing transit routes, will not view these developments neutrally. Moreover, their political and economic responses will shape the environment in which TRIPP operates. Basically, we talked about this above. And the former foreign minister is also of the opinion that the security guarantees based on the protection expected from the great powers have proven to be useless, because they are based on interests, and the interests of the great powers are variable and change over time, and etc. In the case of TRIPP, the political opposition is talking about different guarantees. In your opinion, what kind of guarantee does Armenia need to mitigate possible risks, and how do you imagine the strategic equal presence of regional players in this case?

– This question is a logical continuation of this question and my answer to it. A project like TRIPP cannot work only with the promises of one great power, because such “guarantees” are always temporary and depend on changes in interests. New trade corridors are indeed redistributing influence, and the big regional players are unlikely to look neutrally at a project that changes the existing transit balance and reduces their role, in this case it is about Russia and Iran. That is exactly the environment in which TRIPP should operate, and the stability of that environment will be determined not by statements, but by the reactions of regional powers.

In these conditions, Armenia does not need abstract protection promises, but more practical, measurable and multi-layered guarantees.

The first is the legal guarantees, where it will be clearly established that the road, infrastructure, customs and security regime remain under the sovereign jurisdiction of Armenia.

The second is the multilateral institutional guarantees, that is, not only the US, but the involvement of several actors here, so that the project does not become a political tool of one center.

It is also important to have a mechanism of economic counterbalances, so that Armenia is not only a transit area, but receives a controllable economic benefit, and has compensation and pressure reduction mechanisms in non-working or crisis moments.

Next are operational safety mechanisms, which do not depend on the will of the “guarantor”, but are based on local control, monitoring and quick response. This is the real guarantee, not the on-duty political statements.

As for the “equal presence” of regional players, I don’t think of it as a beautifully balanced symmetry, because such symmetry has almost never existed in the region. It is more realistic to talk about controlled versatility. In other words, the USA can remain the political sponsor of the project, but if Russia and Iran are completely left out of the project’s calculations, they will work to either disrupt or “make” its implementation more expensive. That is why, in my opinion, a model where Russia and Iran are not completely excluded from the regional calculation is in the interests of Armenia.

– By the way the other day, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan, Zulfugarov, also stated that the most important thing for them is the connection of the main part of Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan and ensuring an unhindered transition, and it is not important whether it will be through the November 9 document or TRIPP, in the latter case, Baku is not a direct party.

– This statement of Zulfugarov quite openly and honestly shows the true priority of Baku. The key thing for Azerbaijan is not the specific format in which the issue will be resolved, with the document of November 9 or through TRIPP, but to ensure the uninterrupted, controllable and stable connection between the main part of Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan. In other words, the format is secondary, the goal is to create a permanent and practical connection.

This also explains why Baku is trying not to be completely tied to any one project and to maintain a wide field of maneuver. The caution towards TRIPP is due to the fact that it is more of an American initiative, and the active involvement of the US in such a project may limit Azerbaijan’s independence in managing the corridor and its political use to some extent.

On the other hand, the November 9 format is more suitable for Baku in the sense that it is closer to the logic of regional and bilateral control without an overt external dominant actor. In other words, the essence of the issue for Baku is not who builds or sponsors that road, but under what conditions it will operate. The more seamless that transition is, less controlled by Armenia and more beneficial for Azerbaijan, the more acceptable it will be for Baku, regardless of the political packaging in which it is presented. This is exactly the point that should be understood: the primary thing for Azerbaijan is not the name of the document, but the practical provision of corridor logic.

– And in the end, in the background of the war against Iran, did the geopolitical role of Syunik increase, why not also that of Nakhichevan?

– Of course, the questions related to TRIPP in my previous observations can be extended to the whole of Syunik as well. The current US-Iran war showed that Iran not only did not “collapse”, but was also able to resist and thwart the maximum goals of its opponents. In this case, the US will not lose its importance to all the points through which it is possible to exert continuous pressure on Iran, in terms of security, logistics or economy. From that point of view, Syunik remains a zone of high value, because it can be used both in the framework of new transit projects and in the framework of reshaping the balance of power around Iran. But this is where the danger lies for us, because the “increasing importance of Syunik” is not automatically beneficial for Armenia, if it grows only at the expense of competition and positioning of external actors.

In the case of Nakhijevan, the growth of its importance has a slightly different nature. If Syunik is a hub of competition for foreign powers, then Nakhichevan is more of a living platform of the emerging Turkish-Azerbaijani project, not only against Iran, but also against Russia. In other words, if there is still a struggle for the distribution of influence around Syunik, then Nakhijevan has practically turned into a base for strengthening the Turkish-Azerbaijani influence.

—

While the war against the neighboring Islamic Republic of Iran is constantly being discussed in the international press, attracting international relations and US foreign policy “attention”, the US interest in TRIPP does not seem to fade.

Although the pace of implementation of agreements has suffered significantly. Before the American side becomes active, third parties apply to participate in TRIPP-related processes. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan Yermek Kosherbaev and the Minister of Transport Nurlan Sauranbaev are making official visits to Yerevan and Baku these days. The agenda of the Kazakh side seems to be broad, Kazakhstan has been frequently mentioned in Armenian official messages and speeches in recent months, taking a key role in establishing contacts between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as in wider regional geopolitical and transport processes.

However, returning to the visits, we should mention that during the official visit to Yerevan on April 8-9, Minister Kosherbaev met both RA Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan and Nikol Pashinyan. Ararat Mirzoyan in the meeting with his Kazakh counterpart, he noted that the establishment of strategic partnership, which took place in November last year, when Nikol Pashinyan paid an official visit to Kazakhstan, became an important stage in the development of Armenian-Kazakh relations.

“In our broad agenda, I must emphasize one important, key direction for the economic development of our two countries and regions: interconnection. I am sure that the joint efforts towards the further development of transport and logistics infrastructures, including the logic of the “Crossroads of Peace” initiative of the Armenian government, will contribute to the best realization of the economic potential of the region and the strengthening of interregional cooperation,” Mirzoyan told the Foreign Minister of a country that has started importing wheat through Azerbaijan to Armenia in recent months.

Pashinyan, in turn, noted in the meeting with the Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan that the processes taking place in the region have a positive effect on the cooperation between Armenia and Kazakhstan, in particular, the railway communication established through Azerbaijan, Russia and Georgia gives a new impetus to the expansion of trade and economic ties.

Yermek Kosherbaev also said that the established railway communication will significantly expand bilateral trade and economic relations.

At the same time, Yermek Kosherbaev emphasized the unblocking of regional communication channels and highlighted Kazakhstan’s support for TRIPP and the RA Government’s “Crossroads of Peace” projects. He emphasized that Kazakhstan is also interested in the implementation of the above-mentioned projects and the expansion of regional trade and economic ties.

Nikol Pashinyan and Yermek Kosherbaev discussed issues related to the development of cooperation in the fields of infrastructure, construction, agriculture, technology, aviation and tourism. In that regard, the implementation of direct flights between Armenia and Kazakhstan, which will start in the near future, was highlighted. Kazakh officials are in Baku today, where they met with Ilham Aliyev, discussing the Middle Corridor, the Trans-Caspian Green Energy Corridor, and the fiber optic line on which Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are cooperating. Baku also mentioned the role of the process of normalization of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia and the TRIPP project.

It was a short time ago when Nikol Pashinyan announced that Armenia is losing its competitive advantage in the general context of regional de-blockade due to the Russian management of Armenian railways.

According to Nikol Pashinyan, the solution to the situation should be for a country friendly to Russia and Armenia to buy the right of concession management from Russia. However, Moscow does not seem to be enthusiastic about this proposal of Yerevan. At the meeting with the Russian President in the Kremlin on April 1, Pashinyan most likely did not receive a positive response from Moscow in this regard. After that visit, on April 2, during the briefing following the Government session in RA, Pashinyan stated that they have no plans to unilaterally terminate the railway management contract. “The Republic of Armenia has that leverage, but we don’t plan and don’t want to go that way,” Pashinyan said.

To the question of whether it is possible for Yerevan, regardless of Moscow’s position, to try to negotiate and reach an agreement with the Kazakh side, Pashinyan responded by saying that they are not going to do anything behind Russia’s back and will continue to work against the Russian Federation, at least at this stage as long as the opportunities for dialogue are wide and open.

According to Pashinyan, the visit of Kazakh officials is related to the TRIPP project. According to him, the Kazakh side is interested in TRIPP. They are trying to understand what transport opportunities are opening up, including for themselves.

“We should also invite Kazakhstan to be ready to use the transit routes passing through Armenia to look at their exports, imports and the transport services they provide in the chain, because the business of the transport sector, which is private, but the state also has a certain role, cannot be taken separately, because very well, it was taken from one part of the country to another border, but in continuation, there must be a strong partnership in order for that sector to work,” Pashinyan said.

Today, during a joint press conference with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, speaking about RA-US cooperation on TRIPP, RA Minister of Foreign Affairs Ararat Mirzoyan said that partners, that is, third parties, will be needed during the construction of TRIPP, as well as in the system management phase.

“It’s no secret that, as much as this is a bilateral project, it stems from and corresponds to the interests of many countries, starting from China, ending with Portugal, not to mention our immediate neighbors. Isn’t TRIPP on another planet? One end of TRIPP should touch the Republic of Azerbaijan, the other end should end in Nakhchivan, which is also the Republic of Azerbaijan, but the logical continuation, we have talked about this a lot, is Yeraskhov, the other network of Armenian railways, the Kars-Gyur railway junction and the Turkish railway network, the countries of Central Asia are especially very interested… a day ago we met here with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, who was also in Armenia accompanied by the Minister of Transport of Kazakhstan, therefore, there are discussions, the Middle Eastern countries are interested in these topics,” said Mirzoyan.

Kazakhstan has quite ambitious plans in the South Caucasus, striving to become an economic “guarantor” in the region, connecting its interests with the stability of the Trans-Caspian international transport route. In this context, Kazakhstan’s interest is not only political, but also strategic, aimed at the uninterrupted operation of alternative land routes and the suppression of Russian influence.

For the Kazakh side, TRIPP is considered as an element of the Middle Corridor. This interest acquires a systematic and more important character, especially in the light of the proposal made by the Armenian government to the Russian side regarding the transfer of the right of concession management of Armenian railways to Kazakhstan. This is an attempt to move the management of transport infrastructure away from the sphere of Russian influence. The Russian side’s disagreement shows that the Kremlin views control over regional communications as a cornerstone of its geopolitical influence. Kazakhstan’s entry into the Armenian infrastructural field can weaken Russia’s leverage in the region, which is perceived by Moscow as an undesirable change in the status quo, even taking into account the allied relations with Astana within the EAEU framework.

It should also be noted that Kazakhstan’s involvement in the transportation hubs of the South Caucasus significantly strengthens the Turkish factor in the South Caucasus. Astana’s ambitions are seen as the completion of a unified economic chain of the “Turkic world”, which is strategically beneficial to both Baku and Ankara. As a result, the replacement of Russian concession control by Kazakh may become the point where Moscow’s influence will significantly suffer, paving the way for new alliances and communication models where the priority is not post-Soviet ties, but deepening new relations between Turkic-speaking states.

Yerevan has obviously positioned itself in this field, contributing to the establishment of Kazakhstan in new transport projects, simultaneously pushing out the Russian presence from the Armenian transport network.

—