INTRODUCTION
The South Caucasus, a geopolitical crossroads at the intersection of Eurasia and the Middle East, has undergone a seismic transformation. Armenia and Azerbaijan, once locked in protracted conflict over Nagorno‑Karabakh (Artsakh), are now nearing a peace agreement finalized independently of Russia. In its place, the United States has escalated its diplomatic, legal, security, and infrastructural role, effectively replacing Moscow as the primary outside actor shaping the post‑conflict regional order.
This transformation is not just about influence; it’s about the architecture of peace, the language of law, and the shaping of future geopolitics.
This article explores the contours of that transition in full.
I. Historical Context: Russia’s Traditional Role
Historically, Russia was the principal power in the South Caucasus, maintaining dominance in mediation and military presence. In November 2020, it was Russia that brokered the ceasefire that ended the 44-day war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This agreement introduced Russian peacekeepers into Nagorno-Karabakh and the Lachin Corridor, embedding Moscow physically into the conflict’s aftermath. Over decades, Russia had cultivated an image as the indispensable mediator, often operating through the OSCE Minsk Group and bilateral summits hosted in Moscow.
Moreover, Armenia relied heavily on Russia for security. As a founding member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Armenia depended on Moscow for over 90 percent of its military hardware prior to 2022. Russian border guards were stationed at Armenian checkpoints and even oversaw elements of its airport security, a testament to Moscow’s deep integration in Yerevan’s sovereign functions. This reality, however, began to unravel after 2022.
II. Armenia’s Westward Pivot: Legal and Strategic Foundations
By 2023, Armenia had begun reassessing its alliance with Russia. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan publicly admitted that relying solely on Moscow for security was a strategic miscalculation. The sentiment was not rhetorical. On 23 February 2024, Armenia officially froze its participation in the CSTO. By 2025, it had reassumed full control over its borders, effectively removing Russian oversight from critical checkpoints and strategic infrastructure.
A major milestone in this pivot was the signing of the Armenia-United States Strategic Partnership Charter on 14 January 2025. The agreement, ratified by both countries, established legal grounds for comprehensive cooperation on sovereignty, territorial integrity, democracy, cybersecurity, defense reform, and judicial capacity. While the Charter did not offer mutual defense guarantees akin to NATO’s Article 5, it provided a clear framework for bilateral cooperation and symbolized Armenia’s geopolitical realignment.
Simultaneously, military cooperation between the U.S. and Armenia began to deepen. The 2023 joint military exercise “Eagle Partner” marked a significant step in building interoperability between the two states’ armed forces. American policymakers began advocating for designating Armenia as a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA), signaling a desire to formalize long-term strategic alignment.
III. The Peace Process: From Russia’s Mediation to U.S. Facilitation
The most notable evidence of this realignment surfaced in March 2025, when Armenia and Azerbaijan announced they had finalized the text of a peace and intergovernmental relations treaty. The draft treaty marked the first time a comprehensive peace agreement had been negotiated and brought to completion without Russian participation. Talks were held in Abu Dhabi under the aegis of the UAE, with support from Turkey and quiet U.S. facilitation. Moscow, once central to all such negotiations, was conspicuously absent.
Azerbaijan’s role in this process was complex. Baku attached a series of controversial conditions to the treaty, including the requirement that Armenia remove references to Nagorno-Karabakh from its constitution, as well as grant transit rights through the Syunik province, enabling a corridor between mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan. Additionally, Azerbaijan insisted on the formal dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, long seen as ineffectual.
The United States played a moderating role. Washington discouraged any renewed military adventurism from Azerbaijan and sought to broker a compromise that would preserve Armenia’s sovereignty while meeting Baku’s regional connectivity goals. In a bold diplomatic move, the U.S. proposed a 100-year lease to oversee the proposed Syunik corridor, positioning itself as a neutral manager of this sensitive artery.
IV. Key Ways the U.S. Is Replacing Russia
Russia once monopolized diplomatic mediation through ceasefire agreements and multilateral groups like the Minsk Group. Today, the U.S., in tandem with the EU and Turkey, has become the primary facilitator of Armenian-Azerbaijani diplomacy. Talks are now hosted in trilateral and multilateral formats that exclude Russia, further underscoring the geopolitical shift.
On the security front, Armenia’s steady move away from Moscow’s military infrastructure is evident. Russian troops are being withdrawn. Control over borders and strategic facilities has returned to Armenian hands. U.S. training programs and joint operations now contribute to Yerevan’s defense reform, and strategic planning is increasingly aligned with Western partners.
Economically, the United States is fostering a new vision of regional connectivity. In cooperation with the EU, Washington is promoting trade and transport initiatives such as the Zangezur Corridor to integrate Armenia and Azerbaijan into a broader Euro-Asian network-one that bypasses Russia and Iran. Armenia, for its part, is marketing itself as a tech hub, luring giants like Amazon, Nvidia, and Google, and reducing its economic dependence on Moscow.
Culturally and legally, the U.S. is investing in soft power. Through its Charter with Armenia, Washington is shaping legal norms in areas ranging from judicial reform to democratic governance. U.S. civil society organizations and congressional actors continue to advocate for minority rights, recognition of ethnic Armenian grievances, and greater transparency in regional security assistance.
V. Legal Dimensions: International Law, Treaties, and Norms
The peace treaty in question reaffirms the UN Charter principles of territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders. However, some of its provisions introduce novel legal dilemmas. Azerbaijan’s demand that Armenia amend its constitution raises the question of whether a peace agreement can legitimately include provisions that affect a nation’s supreme law. Legal scholars are divided: while states have the sovereign right to amend constitutions, doing so under foreign pressure could violate the spirit of democratic autonomy.
The U.S. proposal to lease the Syunik corridor introduces another legal novelty. If Armenia consents to lease part of its territory for foreign-managed transit, does this constitute a form of extraterritorial jurisdiction? As long as Armenian sovereignty and domestic law are respected, the lease may be deemed lawful under international treaty law. Still, the precedent it sets could shape future discussions on territorial leasing and regional connectivity.
The Strategic Partnership Charter itself represents a binding bilateral treaty. Though it lacks the enforceability of a defense pact, it provides a formalized basis for U.S. engagement and obligates both sides to institutional cooperation. The interplay of lobbying efforts, such as Azerbaijan’s pressure to waive Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act in the U.S., shows how domestic legal systems can influence foreign policy and international norms in real time.
VI. Why Russia Is Losing Out
Russia’s diminishing role is due in part to its strategic overextension. Since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Moscow has been embroiled in a prolonged conflict that has depleted its military and diplomatic bandwidth. Its peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh were widely viewed as ineffective in preventing the 2023 blockade and mass displacement of ethnic Armenians.
Meanwhile, Armenia’s estrangement from Moscow has become institutionalized. The freezing of CSTO membership, withdrawal of Russian border guards, and steps toward EU candidacy reflect a deliberate departure from Moscow’s sphere. Although Russia still operates a military base in Gyumri and runs cultural offices such as Rossotrudnichestvo, their influence is waning and, in Azerbaijan’s case, being expelled entirely.
Finally, regional actors have begun to bypass Russia altogether. The Istanbul-Abu Dhabi trilateral mechanism, involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey, with EU observation, now handles key stages of the peace process. Russia has no veto over these proceedings. Economic corridors and legal frameworks are being developed without any Russian input.
VII. Challenges and Criticisms of the U.S. Role
Not everyone views U.S. involvement as inherently stabilizing. Moscow and its media apparatus have accused Washington of undermining regional equilibrium and exploiting the conflict for strategic gain. Critics argue that U.S. pressure on Azerbaijan, or perceived favoritism toward Armenia, could provoke backlash or encourage a zero-sum approach to diplomacy.
Others warn that the peace agreement currently under discussion may be structurally imbalanced. Without built-in mechanisms for ethnic minority protections, conflict resolution, or third-party enforcement, the treaty risks locking in Azerbaijan’s upper hand. The fate of the displaced ethnic Armenian population from Nagorno-Karabakh remains unresolved. With no formal guarantees for their return, representation, or cultural rights, the peace may appear hollow to many Armenians.
Additionally, the U.S. is not viewed as a credible moral guarantor by all sides. While the Armenian-American community continues to lobby for Artsakh’s recognition and security, the lack of concrete guarantees for displaced populations undercuts U.S. legitimacy in the eyes of some stakeholders.
VIII. Policy and Legal Implications for the U.S., Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the International Community
The replacement of Russia by the United States as mediator and strategic partner carries broader implications. It suggests a realignment of post-Soviet states toward Western institutions, reshaping norms surrounding third-party intervention and regional sovereignty.
Armenia’s rapid movement toward EU accession, supported by both Brussels and Washington, signifies a narrowing of the space for Russian normative influence. At the same time, the legal structuring of the Zangezur Corridor under U.S. stewardship may serve as a model for other transit and lease agreements globally.
The Strategic Partnership Charter, while non-binding in defense terms, nonetheless implies political obligations. Through its implementation commissions and public commitments, the U.S. is held accountable for the peace’s trajectory. Should the process unravel, questions may arise regarding U.S. consistency and follow-through.
IX. Prospects and Forecasts
Looking ahead, the timeline for signing the peace treaty remains uncertain. Azerbaijan’s insistence on Armenian constitutional amendment is deeply controversial domestically and likely requires a national referendum, which is politically feasible only after the June 2026 parliamentary elections. Until then, the treaty may remain in limbo.
At the regional level, alignment with Turkey, the UAE, and the EU suggests a new multilateral framework for South Caucasus diplomacy. This collaborative architecture may collectively ensure the agreement’s enforcement and evolution.
Yet Russia’s potential to interfere remains. Through residual military infrastructure, cultural proxies, and disinformation networks, Moscow could still sabotage the peace if strategically motivated. Armenia and Azerbaijan must therefore remain vigilant.
Within the U.S., diaspora politics and congressional advocacy continue to shape policy. The Armenian-American lobby is likely to maintain pressure for Artsakh recognition, enhanced democracy funding, and conditionality in U.S. security assistance to Azerbaijan.
Conclusion: A Strategic Transition, But Not Yet a Guarantee
Today, the United States has indisputably assumed the dominant external role in the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process. It has supplanted Russia as the key diplomatic broker, legal partner, economic facilitator, and normative shaper of the emerging regional order. Armenia’s alignment with the U.S. reflects not just disillusionment with Russia, but a strategic vision of integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions.
Yet this transition is not irreversible. Sensitive matters - like the status of displaced Karabakh Armenians, corridor management, and constitutional amendments - still pose risks to treaty finalization. Russia remains present in the region, albeit weakened, and could seek to reclaim influence through obstruction or sabotage.
Ultimately, the durability of this transformation hinges on institutional follow-through. Legal reforms must be enacted. Human rights must be protected. Infrastructure must serve both economic and diplomatic ends. If these elements come together, the U.S. may not just replace Russia, but build a sustainable architecture for peace.
However, replacing a power is not the same as guaranteeing stability. Whether this realignment delivers lasting peace or merely rearranges influence will depend on the will and coordination of Armenia, Azerbaijan, the U.S., EU, and other partners. The coming year will prove decisive - particularly after Armenia’s June 2026 elections and the formalization of corridor arrangements. What happens next may determine whether the U.S. role marks a permanent shift in the South Caucasus - or simply a fragile interregnum in a still-unsettled region.
Let’s Shape the Future of Peace and Regional Diplomacy Together
If you are a policymaker, academic, international organization, or strategic affairs analyst seeking insights or partnerships on conflict resolution, peace architecture, or regional diplomacy, we invite you to engage with us. Let’s build collaborative solutions grounded in facts, law, and forward-looking policy. Reach out today for a confidential briefing or strategic dialogue.
No comments:
Post a Comment