Author: Alex Jidarian

Russia’s Foreign Ministry has rejected reporting by the Russian independent media outlet The Insider that detailed the Kremlin’s efforts to influence the upcoming Armenian parliamentary elections. One of The Insider’s key claims — that Russian-Armenian tycoon and opposition figure Samvel Karapetyan had links to Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) — was not directly addressed. Meanwhile, Russia has continued to escalate its economic pressure campaign on Armenia, this time by restricting the import of Armenian flowers.

The investigation published by The Insider on Tuesday had cited leaked offline databases allegedly showing that when Karapetyan was issued an international passport in Russia in 1999, his workplace was mentioned in the Information Centre of the FSB. It also detailed the various Russian operatives tasked with managing the Kremlin’s information war against Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry responded directly to The Insider on Thursday with a lengthy diatribe, saying the outlet had ‘long ago turned into a tool for media manipulation and false anti-Russian propaganda, and continues to generate fakes, fulfilling the corresponding orders of its foreign masters’.

‘The arguments presented in the “investigation” are nothing more than blatant lies and an organised provocation aimed at exerting psychological pressure on Russian diplomats and intimidating the Armenian public before the elections’.

The Russian Foreign Ministry, which published a photo mashup of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyi with Adolf Hitler on Thursday, criticised the ‘professionalism’ of the investigation, claiming, without citing evidence, that it contained ‘numerous factual errors and inaccuracies’.

Links between unnamed individuals in Armenia, likely referring to Karapetyan and fellow tycoon and opposition figure Gagik Tsarukyan, were also downplayed.

‘Any contacts of such figures with the Russian side, participation in international platforms and expert events are automatically declared as “work under the supervision of Russian intelligence”, and the opposition activities themselves are considered part of a “Kremlin operation”. In other words, Armenian society is being forced into a primitive scheme of “government criticism equals a Moscow agent” ’.

The Foreign Ministry further claimed, again without evidence, that The Insider’s investigation was linked to an EU mission to Armenia to combat Russian influence operations.

Separately, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin rejected a different accusation that Karapetyan’s nephew, Narek Karapetyan, holds Russian citizenship. The previous day, Armenian authorities announced they were looking into the charges, while Karapetyan himself stated he was solely an Armenian citizen.

On Thursday, the Armenian media outlet Factor reported that the citizenship data for Narek Karapetyan in the Russian state registry had been edited to show that he only held Armenian citizenship.

Economic and rhetorical pressure

In its latest effort to put economic pressure on Armenia in response to the country’s reorientation westward, Russia announced ‘temporary restrictions’ on the export of Armenian flowers on Wednesday. The Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance said the move was made to ‘protect Russia’s export potential and phytosanitary safety’.

Russia has repeatedly been accused of imposing such export restrictions as a form of economic coercion on countries, including Armenia.

Earlier in May, Russia suspended the sale of Armenian Jermuk water over alleged regulatory violations.

Separately, the secretary of Russia’s Security Council, Sergei Shoigu, made thinly veiled threats of further economic measures against Armenia as part of wider criticisms of the country on Wednesday.

‘Cooperation with Russia is the main driver of the Armenian economy. It’s difficult to dispute this fact’, Shoigu said.

‘I wonder in what quantities and under what conditions Armenian apricots, trout, and mineral water will be supplied to the European Union’.

Shoigu further accused Armenia of taking a number of ‘unfriendly’ steps recently, including the invitation of Zelenskyi to Yerevan for the European Political Community summit earlier in May.

‘It is no secret that the leadership of that country has taken a number of steps of late that do not correspond to the spirit of allied relations with the Russian Federation’, Shoigu said.

• Marilena Koilakou
• May 14, 2026

Gayane Simonyan, the visionary founder and creative force behind ARCAICÓ, is redefining luxury home décor through a fusion of tradition, innovation, and timeless artistry.

With a background in political philosophy and fine arts, she brings a unique intellectual and artistic perspective to her work, combining mastery of material, form, and heritage.

Under her guidance, ARCAICÓ produces museum-grade, hand-crafted pieces, from sculptural marble furniture to lead-free crystal décor.

Her CRYSTAL DECORS collection won the Good Design Award 2025 and is featured at The European Centre–Contemporary Space in Athens. This feature is part of our Women in Design series.

GDN: In an era of constant trends, how would you describe “timeless design”?

Gayane Simonyan: In an era of constant trends, I approach timeless design as a question of continuity rather than permanence. Timeless design does not erase the moment of its creation.

I began to understand this while engaged in art history studies at university. I adopted the idea that it’s really about the ability of an object or décor to remain relevant across shifting temporal contexts, by being grounded in proportion, material integrity, and conceptual clarity—this is what allows a design to operate beyond temporal cycles.

I see timelessness achieved when a piece doesn’t rely on decoration to justify its existence. Instead, it’s defined by its structural logic, its relationship to space, and its capacity to evolve—visually and physically—without losing meaning.

A timeless object doesn’t seek attention; it holds presence. And most of the time, it takes breaking rules to create décor that becomes part of the architectural language rather than a temporary accent within it, and this we can see over and over throughout history.

In all my work, painting or décor, I have in mind the idea: what if this piece is going to be the only thing that remains that represents this specific time and area? Will it say something about the culture or presence of its time? Does it carry feelings? Because timeless design is never the absence of its time.

It always carries the imprint of its era—the techniques, the cultural atmosphere, the intention behind it. When it moves into future generations, it should still feel relevant, while quietly communicating the moment in which it was conceived.

GDN: You speak about objects carrying “energy” and becoming part of our living DNA. Can you expand on this philosophy?

Gayane Simonyan: I often mention that every object that has a permanent residence in our living space carries absorbed energy from the events we have experienced in its presence.

I believe objects are not passive; they become a part of our living style’s DNA, as over time they register interaction, light, and human presence, gradually accumulating meaning through continuity. A piece that exists within daily routines, gatherings, or moments is no longer something we actively notice—it becomes something we operate around.

In that sense, it embeds itself into our behavioral patterns. This accumulation of lived experience gives it a layered meaning over time. At a certain point, that permanence begins to influence the space itself.

An object starts to participate in the spatial logic of an interior—it affects balance, circulation, light distribution, and visual hierarchy. When I refer to “energy,” I’m defining this measurable and perceptual impact—how an object reflects, absorbs, and modulates light, and how it shapes spatial perception and behavior.

This introduces a clear responsibility in design. With that in mind, objects need to engage the senses, but they cannot dominate the environment. They should disrupt silence without creating noise.

Achieving that balance takes time—sometimes months—until a piece reaches that precise equilibrium between restraint and _expression_.

GDN: What draws you to materials like crystal and marble?

Gayane Simonyan: My interest is focused on materials that are active participants, rather than passive carriers of form.

Their significance lies beyond surface, in how they hold weight, transmit light, and register time. The work begins with understanding these inherent properties and composing them with precision and restraint.

Crystal operates through light. It refracts, reflects, and distorts, introducing a controlled instability—an object that shifts in perception depending on its environment. Its clarity is exacting; it exposes proportion and geometry without tolerance for excess.

Marble, by contrast, is grounded and finite. It arrives already resolved, shaped by geological time. Its connection to ancient art and architecture is structural rather than referential—a discipline of proportion, permanence, and measured intervention. The veining is intrinsic, and the role of design is to frame, not compete.

The work evolves through the tension between materials—translucency against mass, precision against irregularity. Looking forward, I aim to extend this language into compositions that integrate wood and steel, introducing a different register of warmth and structural clarity.

I also design fine jewelry, where the same principles are applied—every proportion, junction, and surface becomes critical. A disciplined approach to material and balance defines the final form.

GDN: How do you define responsible luxury today?

Gayane Simonyan: I define luxury today not by price or exclusivity, but by intention and longevity. A responsible object is designed to endure, both aesthetically and functionally. It resists trends and is conceived with a clear understanding of material origin, fabrication processes, and long-term impact.

Within this framework, sustainability becomes a core value—not an added feature, but a condition of good design. I see it emerging through restraint: choosing fewer, more meaningful objects, reducing waste through precision, and valuing craftsmanship over mass production.

It also requires accountability in sourcing and production, ensuring that each decision contributes to durability rather than excess.

For me, responsible luxury is not about accumulation, but about discernment. It is the ability to create and choose objects that justify their existence over time—pieces that remain relevant, age with integrity, and establish a lasting relationship between material, function, and the individual.

GDN: What changes would you like to see in the global design industry to better support women designers?

Gayane Simonyan: I believe the industry does not need symbolic inclusion, but rather structural recalibration.

However, I would first acknowledge that today, women have significantly greater visibility, rights, and freedom of _expression_ than at any point in the past century.

However, I see that visibility alone does not translate into influence—the gap still remains in access and authority. I believe women designers must have equal access to capital, manufacturing networks, and large-scale commissions.

Without this, recognition stays surface-level. True participation depends on the ability to build, scale, and lead, not only to be seen.

I also believe there is a need to recalibrate how design is evaluated. Work should be judged on intellectual rigor, technical precision, and innovation, rather than being filtered through expectations or narratives often assigned to women.

Removing these constraints allows for a more accurate and expansive understanding of design contributions.

For me, progress will be evident when representation is no longer framed as an exception or an achievement, but becomes an unremarkable constant across all levels of the industry—from emerging designers to decision-making positions.

GDN: What still excites or challenges you most about the journey ahead?

Gayane Simonyan: As a woman and a mother of two young girls, there is nothing more exciting to me than the shift I am witnessing today.

I feel that people are becoming more aware of themselves and their surroundings. They have more platforms to speak, express, and use their voices for something meaningful and compassionate.

There is a growing understanding of individual abilities, potential, and unique talents, which I find very powerful.

What as a designer continues to drive me is the tension between control and unpredictability and the constant search for new ways of creating. I think, we are entering an era where human creation will become more valuable than ever and I feel a responsibility to contribute my work to this expanding ocean of creativity.

It is an important moment not to lose human _expression_ within the uniformity of machine- and AI-driven grayness.

The challenge I see is a shift in how we inhabit space. In an environment increasingly shaped by technology and efficiency, finely considered objects are becoming rare—almost at risk of disappearing.

Removing beauty from our interiors is, in a way, like removing the soul from the body while still expecting depth of experience.

I fully embrace the dynamism of contemporary living, yet I believe in the enduring value of objects that carry intention and presence. I am particularly interested in expanding the role of objects within interiors—moving beyond function toward spatial influence.

Objects should not simply occupy space; they should actively shape it. That intersection between art, architecture, and object design is where I see the next phase of my work.

Russian influence in Armenia is operating through a combination of oligarchic finance, political patronage, media control, energy leverage, and anti-Western narratives. Pro-Russian opposition networks around Robert Kocharyan, Samvel Karapetyan, Seiran Ohanyan, and related political-business structures could be used by Moscow to reverse Armenia’s Western opening, weaken democratic reforms, and preserve Russia’s military-political leverage in the South Caucasus. 

The key risk is not simply electoral competition inside Armenia. The deeper threat is the possible reconstitution of an oligarchic, Russia-dependent political system that would turn Armenia into a sanctions-evasion platform, a pressure point against Western mediation, and a tool for destabilizing the Black Sea–Caspian security space.

Russia’s strategic objective is to prevent Armenia from escaping Moscow’s security and economic orbit. Since Yerevan has moved closer to the United States, the EU, and Western security formats, Moscow has increasingly relied on non-military levers: opposition financing, business networks, media influence, energy infrastructure, and revanchist rhetoric.

The intel data identifies Robert Kocharyan’s long-standing ties with Vladimir Yevtushenkov and AFK Sistema as a direct channel of Russian influence. This connection is strategically significant because AFK Sistema is under U.S. sanctions and has links to sectors relevant to Russia’s military-industrial ecosystem. 

The alleged involvement of Russian-linked oligarchs in financing opposition figures creates a direct vulnerability for Armenian sovereignty. Kocharyan’s release from custody in 2020 was enabled by a $4.1 million bail payment reportedly provided by Russian oligarchs, including Karapetyan, Yevtushenkov, and Ambartsumyan. 

This should be viewed as more than personal assistance. It represents political investment: Russian capital sustaining a leadership network that could return Armenia to a Moscow-centered foreign policy.

Samvel Karapetyan’s Tashir Group is especially important because of its role in Armenia’s energy sector. Control over electricity distribution and generation assets creates potential leverage over tariffs, infrastructure stability, and public dissatisfaction. Such influence could be used to manufacture crises, discredit the current government, and promote Karapetyan’s political project, Strong Armenia. 

One of the most serious risks concerns Armenia’s possible transformation into a hub for “parallel imports” of dual-use goods to Russia. The document argues that the integration of pro-Russian Armenian leaders with Russian business networks creates conditions for bypassing Western export controls. 

This would directly threaten U.S. and EU sanctions policy. If Armenia becomes a transit node for electronics, machine tools, components, or technologies useful to Russia’s defense industry, Moscow would gain another route to sustain its war economy despite sanctions.

Russian-funded or Russia-aligned media resources, including Alpha News, are instruments for shaping Armenia’s information space. Their role is to spread narratives about “Western aggression,” discredit the United States, undermine Armenian-American military cooperation, and preserve nostalgia for Russian security guarantees. 

This is a classic Russian influence method: dominate the narrative environment before political decisions are made. By portraying Western engagement as dangerous and anti-corruption reforms as foreign diktat, Moscow-backed actors seek to weaken public support for Armenia’s democratic and Euro-Atlantic trajectory.

Seiran Ohanyan and other pro-Russian figures reportedly attack Armenian-American military exercises such as Eagle Partner, arguing that only the CSTO can guarantee Armenia’s security. 

This narrative is strategically useful for Moscow because it seeks to block Armenia’s gradual diversification away from Russian security dependence. If successful, it would preserve Russia’s military base in Armenia and reduce Western ability to assist Yerevan in defense reform.

Revanchist rhetoric is used to obstruct Western-mediated peace negotiations with Azerbaijan. This matters because unresolved conflict remains one of Russia’s main justifications for maintaining a military presence and political leverage in Armenia. 

The return of oligarchic forces would likely mean the weakening or dismantling of Armenia’s anti-corruption architecture. Pro-Russian opposition actors frame anti-corruption reforms as “Western dictatorship,” are seeking to restore the clan-capitalist model of the early 2000s. 

This would threaten Western financial assistance and investment. If Armenia is perceived as returning to oligarchic governance, Western institutions may become less willing to provide financial support, while Russian companies would likely regain privileged access to tenders, energy assets, mining, and infrastructure.

For Washington, the risks are direct. A successful pro-Russian oligarchic comeback could undermine the U.S. Global Fragility Act strategy, weaken American influence in the South Caucasus, and create a new platform for sanctions evasion. Armenia could become an instrument for Russia to destabilize the Black Sea–Caspian region. 

The risks include loss of export-control integrity, reduced security cooperation, damage to U.S.-backed democratic reforms, and weakening of Western mediation in the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process.

If Russian-backed networks regain influence, Armenia could face three damaging outcomes.

First, it could lose strategic autonomy, with major peace agreements, regional projects, and foreign-policy decisions effectively requiring approval from Moscow.

Second, Armenia could become economically trapped as an energy and resource appendage of Russia’s sanctioned economy, losing access to modern technology, Western investment, and diversified markets.

Third, a pro-Russian oligarchic restoration could trigger a new wave of youth emigration, as younger Armenians reject a future dominated by Russian corporate affiliates and clan-based politics. 

Russian influence in Armenia has a multidimensional threat rather than a conventional political alliance. Moscow’s leverage operates through money, media, energy, mining, legal networks, political parties, and security narratives.

The central danger is that Russia may use Armenian opposition networks not only to regain influence in Yerevan, but to turn Armenia into a regional tool for sanctions evasion, democratic rollback, anti-Western mobilization, and obstruction of peace.

Key Judgment: Russian-linked oligarchic networks in Armenia represent a strategic threat to Armenian sovereignty, U.S. interests, Western sanctions enforcement, and regional stability in the South Caucasus.

Russia appears to be pursuing a high-intensity indirect influence strategy toward Armenia, relying increasingly on oligarchic, political, economic, and media networks rather than overt military coercion. The probability that Moscow currently prefers hybrid political capture over direct military pressure is high.

This reflects both Russia’s reduced capacity after the war in Ukraine and Armenia’s growing distrust of Russian security guarantees following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, the CSTO’s inaction during clashes with Azerbaijan, and the gradual expansion of Armenian-Western cooperation.

The Kremlin’s core objective is no longer simply to maintain a military presence in Armenia, but to prevent Armenia from fully escaping Moscow’s geopolitical orbit.

Russia is attempting to preserve leverage through oligarchic patronage, energy dependency, media influence, corruption networks, and political proxies. 

This model is cheaper, less risky, and more sustainable than direct coercion.

Russia’s credibility as Armenia’s security guarantor suffered major damage after CSTO passivity, Russian peacekeeping failures, and Moscow’s inability or unwillingness to stop Azerbaijani advances.

Large parts of Armenian society increasingly perceive Russia not as a protector, but as unreliable, transactional, and strategically self-interested.

Because of this, Moscow increasingly relies on internal influence rather than external force.

Armenia remains important to Russia because it provides a military foothold in the South Caucasus; influence over regional transport corridors; leverage against Turkey and Azerbaijan and a platform near Iran.

If Armenia fully reorients toward the EU, the United States, or alternative security structures, Russia risks losing one of its last reliable regional anchors outside Belarus.

The strongest mechanism appears to be oligarchic integration.

• Robert Kocharyan, Samvel Karapetyan, Russian oligarch Vladimir Yevtushenkov, and Russian-linked business structures

as interconnected actors. 

This matters because oligarchic systems create political dependency, financial leverage, and elite loyalty networks.

Russia historically prefers this model because captured elites are often more effective than occupied territory.

Pro-Russian Armenian actors reportedly attack Armenian-American exercises, defense cooperation, and Western mediation efforts. 

This serves Moscow’s strategic goal of blocking Armenia’s security diversification,

Russia’s current strategy toward Armenia is best understood as: hybrid neo-imperial management through elite capture rather than occupation.

The Kremlin increasingly seeks to preserve influence without direct confrontation; control decision-making indirectly; and ensure that Armenia never fully escapes Russian geopolitical influence.

 Russia is attempting to maintain and potentially restore strategic control over Armenia primarily through oligarchic influence, energy leverage, political proxies, and information dominance rather than direct military coercion, reflecting Moscow’s broader shift toward hybrid methods of regional control amid the constraints imposed by the war in Ukraine.

Russian-funded and Russia-aligned media outlets continue to exert significant but no longer uncontested influence over Armenia’s information environment. Their influence remains particularly strong in television and traditional media audiences, older demographics, security-related discourse, and politically conservative or revanchist segments of society.

Since 2020–2023, especially after Russia’s perceived failure to protect Armenia during the Nagorno-Karabakh crises, Moscow’s informational dominance has weakened considerably. Armenia’s media space is now increasingly contested by pro-government outlets, independent Armenian media,  Western-supported civil society platforms, and social media ecosystems.

Overall, Russia likely retains medium-to-high informational influence — approximately 55–70% influence in strategic-security narratives, but much lower control over younger urban audiences.

Armenia historically represented one of Russia’s most media-dependent environments in the post-Soviet space because of linguistic integration (large Russian-speaking population), Soviet-era cultural legacy, military-security dependency, Russian television penetration, and deep economic ties.

For decades, Russian media narratives were perceived by many Armenians as: authoritative, culturally familiar, and strategically relevant.

Russian television channels, analysts, and political commentators heavily shaped perceptions regarding security, geopolitics, NATO, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and the West.

Russia’s media influence in Armenia operates through several overlapping mechanisms.

A. Russian State Media. Major Russian outlets historically consumed in Armenia include: RT, Sputnik Armenia, Russian federal TV channels, pro-Kremlin Telegram ecosystems.

These platforms amplify narratives such as: “the West betrays allies,” “only Russia guarantees security,” “NATO destabilizes the region,” “Western reforms destroy sovereignty.”

B. Armenian Pro-Russian Media. Outlets such as Alpha News are vehicles for anti-Western narratives, disinformation, and attacks on U.S.-Armenian cooperation. 

These platforms often function not as purely Russian media, but as localized amplifiers of Kremlin strategic messaging.

This is important because local Armenian voices generally appear more credible than direct Russian propaganda.

Telegram and Social Media Networks

Telegram has become one of the Kremlin’s most effective influence tools in Armenia.

Russia-linked ecosystems use anonymous channels, coordinated repost networks, bot amplification, emotional narratives, and war-related fear messaging.

The goal is often emotional destabilization, distrust of Western mediation, and delegitimization of Armenian reform efforts.

Russian-aligned media consistently promote several core themes.

“Russia is Armenia’s only protector”.This remains the central narrative despite Russia’s declining credibility.

“The West will abandon Armenia”

This narrative seeks to discourage EU integration, U.S. cooperation, and security diversification.

“Peace with Azerbaijan equals surrender”

This message helps Russia preserve: regional instability, dependence on Russian mediation, and justification for military presence.

“Anti-corruption reforms are foreign control”

Pro-Russian forces portray anti-corruption reforms as “Western dictatorship.” 

This mirrors Russian narratives used in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine before 2014.

Despite continued influence, Moscow’s informational dominance has suffered serious damage.

Karabakh Shock

Many Armenians perceived: Russian passivity, CSTO inaction, and peacekeeping failure as betrayal.

This weakened the long-standing myth of Russia as Armenia’s guaranteed protector.

Since 2018, Armenia has seen growth of independent journalism, digital media expansion, investigative reporting, and more pluralistic political debate.

Younger Armenians increasingly consume:

• Western media, social platforms, independent digital content.

They are generally: more skeptical of Kremlin narratives, less emotionally attached to Soviet identity, and more supportive of democratic reforms.

Even with declining trust, Russia maintains major advantages.

Fear remains Moscow’s strongest informational weapon.

Russia exploits fear of Azerbaijan, fear of Turkey, fear of isolation, and fear of abandonment.

Russian-linked business structures can financially sustain media ecosystems, political influencers, and propaganda channels.

Russian media influence in Armenia creates several major risks.

Blocking Western Integration. By portraying Western engagement as dangerous or unreliable.

 Preserving Dependency. By reinforcing the idea that Armenia cannot survive without Russia.

Radicalization and Polarization. Through revanchist and anti-government narratives.

 Hybrid Destabilization. Media ecosystems can rapidly support protests, disinformation campaigns, or crisis escalation.

Russia no longer fully dominates Armenia’s information environment as it did before 2020. However:  Moscow still possesses substantial influence over strategic-security discourse, especially through fear-based narratives, pro-Russian Armenian outlets, oligarchic financing and emotional manipulation tied to regional insecurity. The information battle in Armenia is now increasingly competitive rather than monopolistic.Russian-funded and Russia-aligned media continue to exert significant influence over Armenia’s information environment, particularly in the security sphere, using fear-based narratives, anti-Western messaging, and localized media proxies to preserve Armenian dependence on Moscow and obstruct deeper Western integration.

https://lansinginstitute.org/2026/05/12/russian-money-in-armenian-opposition-risks-to-armenia-u-s-interests-and-regional-security/

As reported by the “Caucasian Knot,” on May 9, 479 tons of diesel fuel were exported from Azerbaijan to Armenia, along with a transit shipment of agricultural fertilizers from Russia. Thus, more than 27,000 tons of grain, 4,000 tons of fertilizer, 133 tons of aluminum, and 68 tons of buckwheat have already been transited from Russia to Armenia via Azerbaijan.

On December 18, 2025, the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan delivered gasoline to Armenia for the first time. By May 3, more than 8,500 tons of diesel fuel, 979 tons of AI-92 gasoline, and 2,955 tons of AI-95 gasoline had been exported. The volumes of gasoline supplied are insignificant; these deliveries can be viewed primarily as a political gesture in the context of a peace settlement, Armenian economists previously noted.

Today, 16 railcars of diesel fuel were sent from Azerbaijan to Armenia, as well as a consignment of transit cargo from Russia – six railcars of fertilizer and four railcars of grain, APA reports.

Azerbaijan exported 986 tons of diesel fuel today. As of May 10, more than 9,000 tons of diesel fuel, 979 tons of AI-92 gasoline, and 2,955 tons of AI-95 gasoline have already been exported to Armenia, Report reports.

The transit freight cars sent today from the Bilajari station in the direction of Boyuk Kyasik contain 402 tons of fertilizer and 276 tons of grain, the agency writes.

The cars are leaving Azerbaijan first for Georgia, and from there, for Armenia. According to Yandex Maps, the Bilajari railway station is located in the Baku settlement of the same name, and the Boyuk Kyasik station, where trains depart, is in the Aghstafa region of Azerbaijan, near the border with Georgia’s Gardabani municipality.

As a reminder, in October 2025, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev announced the lifting of all restrictions on cargo transit to Armenia. In early November 2025, a cargo of Russian grain arrived in Armenia via Azerbaijan for the first time since the 1990s. The Armenian government noted that this fulfilled one of the agreements reached in the United States, which contributed to strengthening peace between Yerevan and Baku.

On August 8, 2025, Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan signed a declaration on the cessation of hostilities at a meeting in Washington. US President Donald Trump stated that the key issue that had prevented the signing of a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been resolved: the issue of the Zangezur Corridor. The “Caucasian Knot” has prepared a report “Trump Route” (TRIPP): Transport Corridor through Armenia”.

On February 4, Aliyev and Pashinyan discussed the economic cooperation they had initiated at a meeting in the UAE and agreed to explore opportunities to expand trade. Although mutually beneficial, trade and economic cooperation between Azerbaijan and Armenia will be limited in the near future, analysts in Baku noted.

Translated automatically via Google translate from class=”gmail_default” st1yle=”font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:small”>
Source: Caucasian Knot