The calculation with the collapse of the Republic of Armenia is given.

What is hidden behind the signing of the declaration on Azerbaijan-Armenia in Washington on August 8? We have examined this issue using the example of 2 of the central points of the declaration. During the trilateral (Ilham-Donald-Nicole) meeting in Washington, a joint declaration was signed as a prelude to the peace process.

The declaration specifically mentions the opening of transport communications, including the Azerbaijan ↔ Nakhichevan connection via Armenia - the "Trump Road", the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group format, and other issues.

Analysis of the central points of the Declaration

The official 3rd paragraph reads as follows:

“We reaffirmed the importance of opening up communications for domestic, bilateral and international transport between the two countries to promote peace, stability and prosperity in the region and its vicinity, based on respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity and jurisdiction of States. These efforts should include unhindered connectivity between the main part of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic through the territory of the Republic of Armenia, bringing mutual benefits to the international and domestic connectivity of the Republic of Armenia.”

"Unhindered" vs. true sovereign control

The paragraph talks about an “unimpeded” direct connection through the occupied territory of Artsakh (present-day Azerbaijan) to Nakhichevan, through the territory of Armenia. This in turn poses a risk of external control: first, “sovereignty, territorial integrity” is mentioned, and immediately after that, the formulation “include unimpeded connectivity” is mentioned. There cannot be an “unimpeded connection” within the logic of “sovereignty”. Sovereignty is sovereignty without “buts”. Sovereignty must be an obstacle for other states and be based on the subjectivity of the country, in our case, the Republic of Armenia.

In reality, Azerbaijan receives a bonus in the form of a direct road, while Armenia receives perhaps only infrastructural development, without any guarantees of security or sovereignty. Moreover, there is no mention of the possibility of transit from Armenia through Azerbaijani territory and the possibility of conducting equal “unhindered” activities.

In summary, we note that point 3 immediately becomes the most complex and contradictory part of the declaration. It presents clear technical possibilities (e.g., transportation, communications), but does not provide any minimal guarantees in terms of Armenia's sovereign, security, and legal interests.

- "Unobstructed" path + unclear control = tangible reduction in sovereignty.

- The movement of the Western team without the involvement of Armenia's security allies = political dependence.

The official 4th paragraph reads as follows:

“The Republic of Armenia will work with the United States of America and mutually determined third parties to develop a framework for the Trump Path to International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) connectivity project in the territory of the Republic of Armenia. We reaffirm our determination to continue our efforts in good faith to achieve this goal as quickly as possible.”

On the one hand, this point clearly emphasizes that the path must be developed with the US and third parties, which implies external oversight.

This contradiction is both in the perspective of Armenia's national sovereignty and does not establish mechanisms of equal trust between the parties. In other words, the decision-maker will be the United States, not the Republic of Armenia.

If the road is actually managed by US-owned concession operators, the system becomes a platform for external environmental influence.

This would contradict Armenia's sovereign interests, especially when there are no clear provisions for border, customs, and security regulation. In other words, there should be a clear formulation that this road will be managed by Armenia.

In summary, let us note that point 4, "TRIPP", comes to replace Russian control with a Western mask, but the absence of a field of "international guarantees" that has never been implemented makes this path a more dependent and unstable solution, and gives Azerbaijan ample opportunities to start a new war, using every pretext in the future.

Moreover, it creates risks in terms of advancing the militarization of Nakhichevan and the emergence of new, higher positions in terms of Azerbaijan's strategic advantage.

Including Iran, as a neighboring country and a country speaking out against such a path (Western influence), may respond by political-diplomatic or even military means.

The biggest risks facing Armenia

• The issue of sovereignty and control over the road. If the road operates in an unregulated regime (lack of special legal regulations, bilateral “disruption” mechanisms, or the long-term presence of foreign companies), then Armenia loses the ability to truly govern a practical part of a part of its own territory.

• Comparison of humanitarian and legal issues (e.g., the captivity of the captives and the military-political leadership of Artsakh, the uncertain situation regarding the return of our compatriots from Artsakh).

• Decreased Russian influence or a regional “security vacuum.” A reduction in Russia’s existing (if not absolute) defense presence could bring short-term benefits to perceived “new partners,” but at the same time increase dependence on the US/West and expose it to extraordinary risks.

The signing of the Washington Declaration creates absolutely huge risks for Armenia in terms of sovereignty, security balance, and human rights. This means no peace.

International scholar, expert on Azerbaijani affairs: Garnik Davtyan