in Russian – https://crossroadorg.info/wa-12-9-2025/
in French – https://crossroadorg.info/en/wa-12-9-2025-fr/
in Armenian – https://crossroadorg.info/hy/wa-12-9-2025-hy/
in Turkish – http://crossroadorg.info/en/12-9-2025-tr/

Source

 

1. On the Blockade of Armenia

For more than 35 years, Armenia, a landlocked country, has been systematically blockaded and isolated by two hostile and genocidal neighboring states—Azerbaijan and Turkey. Contrary to the claims that Armenia has closed communication routes in the South Caucasus, the reality is the opposite: Armenia has never closed a single interstate road or railway. All major transportation routes around Armenia have been blocked since 1988 in various ways, which has created an unprecedented humanitarian and geopolitical crisis in Armenia, the South Caucasus, and the Middle East.

This blockade developed in four stages:

• Since 1988, Azerbaijan has implemented a complete blockade of Armenia.
• As a result of the U.S.-led wars against Iran in 1991 – 2013, Armenia’s route through Iran to Iraq and the Arab world was closed. In addition, Iran itself is under economic sanctions, which naturally impedes the normal development of both Iran and Armenia.
• In 1992, the railway from Russia to Armenia through Georgia was closed.
• In 1993, Turkey closed its border with Armenia, thus blocking the route from Armenia to Europe through Turkish territory.

It should be noted that, according to the UN Convention “On the Definition of Aggression” (Resolution 3314), the blockade is regarded not only as an act of aggression but also as a military action.

The events around Armenia and inside Armenia itself have a distant goal and logic — following the example of the events of September–December 1920 to impose a new treaty on the Armenian people according to which Armenia will renounce resistance, defense, and all rights granted to it, including rights to its sovereign territories, as was done by the Alexandropol Treaty imposed on Armenia on December 2, 1920.

 

2. Under the Threat of Force: Repeated Demands in the Treaties Imposed on Armenia

• Treaty of Batum, 1918, Article 5.
• Treaty of Alexandropol, 1920, Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13.
• Treaty of Moscow, 1921, Article 8.
• Treaty of Kars, 1921, Articles 2, 5, 10.
• Protocols on the Development of Bilateral Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey, Zurich, Switzerland, August 10, 2009.
• Agreement between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan, 2025, Articles 2, 3, 8, 11, 14, 15.

 

3. Territory exchange plan

At first glance, it may seem strange when and how the logic of territorial exchange through corridors arose, considering Armenia to be blockaded from all sides, and despite the fact that, according to the Arbitral Award of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson of November 22, 1920, Armenia was supposed to gain the access to the Black Sea through Trebizond. All parties initially consigned these facts and spoke only of the Meghri (now also Syunik) corridor at the expense of Armenia, ignoring its interests in the Middle East and the South Caucasus.

The first such option was the settlement plan for the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, known as the Goble Plan. Paul Goble, an American expert-analyst on national issues of the USSR who worked in the U.S. Department of State in the 1980s and in the 1990s at the Washington office of Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe, in 1991 proposed a plan to resolve the Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) conflict by territorial exchange between Armenia and Azerbaijan. According to Goble Plan, the exchange of the Lachin district of Artsakh for the Meghri district of Armenia would provide Azerbaijan with a direct geographic connection to Nakhichevan, and Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh. In this case, the possibility of recognizing the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh or its entry into Armenia was not excluded.

The second was the project of Ralph Peters, a retired lieutenant colonel of the U.S. Armed Forces, military analyst, writer, and commentator, who in 2006 published in the U.S. Armed Forces Journal the article “Bloody Borders: a new map of the Middle East based on the faith and kinship”. The attached new map of the Middle East, shows that Meghri, belonging to Armenia, is transferred to Azerbaijan, and as such is not marked on the map. The Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic is also missing on the map. Moreover, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region is not marked on the map either. All of these are depicted as part of Azerbaijan, without any delineation of districts or autonomies borders.

The main contradictions with historical, legal, and political realities presented both in Goble’s Plan and in Peters’ article are as follows:

1. a) The corridor logic ignores the interests of Armenia, since it is offered to cede the vitally important territory of Meghri in exchange for peace with Azerbaijan or for regional communications.
2. b) Armenia has legal grounds not to concede, but rather to demand the implementation of the Arbitral Award of the 28th U.S. President, Woodrow Wilson.
3. c) The Armenian population of Artsakh had and still has the right to defense and free self-determination, and even Azerbaijan aggression, ethnic cleansing, deportation, and genocide cannot deprive it of these rights.

It should be emphasized that the corridor ideas at the expense of Armenia do not arise from the intermediaries’ pursuit of peace, but from illegal, illegitimate, and criminal plans and calculations of certain regional and geopolitical centers.

 

4. The essence of the corridor-based territory exchange plan

Does not it seem strange that today there is neither Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, nor Lachin Corridor, however the corridor logic of territorial exchange continues to exist in the form of Paul Goble’s plan and Ralph Peters’s articles and maps? The essence is that this plan of territorial exchange, in this case Meghri–Lachin, conceals not one seemingly simple plan, but two far-reaching and disastrous projects that are invisible at first glance.

Namely:
a) To implement the blockade of Iran from the Armenian side by means of territorial exchange;

b) To ensure land communication between Azerbaijan and Turkey through the corridor opening the way of Turan into Central Asia.

This was the main reason why many representatives of the Armenian authorities opposed the territorial exchange, for the simple reason that:

a) Meghri constitutes the transport backbone of Armenia from east to west;

b) The concession of Meghri would deal a fatal blow to Armenia’s geopolitical position as a civilizational communicator and crossroads, while simultaneously depriving the blockaded Armenia of the only opportunity for access to the outside world through Iran under the blockade.

 

5. The origin of the corridor logic

The corridor logic was formed in the collective West according to which Azerbaijan has to provide a direct communication with Turkey and Nakhichevan, thus strengthening the Turkish geopolitical transport corridor. This is evidenced by Paul Goble’s plan (1991) and Ralph Peters’s article and map (2006). Today, this has become a part of the idea of the so-called “Zangezur Corridor,” advanced by Turkey and Azerbaijan.

And Armenia, being under blockade, has always been regarded as a “small sacrificial link.” At the same time, naturally, the right of the Armenian people to life, development, and future, the issue of the security of the Armenian people and Armenia, and the questions of realization and implementation of the rights granted to the Armenian people were sacrificed.

It is worth noting that the first books containing the programmatic provisions of Pan-Turkism were published in 1873–1874 in England, in 1877 in Germany, and in 1889 in France. The authors of these books are not Turks, but Europeans. And according to the studies of the Lebanese-Armenian lawyer, publicist and intellectual Gaspar Terteryan, the authors of these books are Zionist Jews. In fact, if Turan passes through Armenia—if it does it indeed —the main players of the collective West will be able to celebrate their Pyrrhic victory. Another question is what new trump cards will then fall into the hands of England and the United States, the EU and Israel, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China; of what quality, how will this new game unfold in new realities; and who will win, and who will lose definitively — perhaps for a long time, or maybe forever? It is evident that only one of the above-mentioned states will be the winner. The task of modern analysts is to answer the question what state will become an unprecedented superpower in the world. For the others, a long, harsh, and painful period of decline will naturally begin. We can suggest the state that supported Turan for centuries. We repeat — if, of course, Turan passes through Armenia.

 

6. On the Territory and Borders of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region)

On April 28 and December 2, 1920, as a result of the invasion of the Red Army, Azerbaijan and Armenia were respectively sovietized.

In the same year, on the basis of the declaration of Soviet Azerbaijan renouncing claims to “disputed territories” and the agreement between the governments of Soviet Armenia and Azerbaijan, in June 1921 Armenia declared Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) as its integral part. This act of reunification was recognized by both the international community and Bolshevik Russia, and it was confirmed in the resolution of the League of Nations of December 18, 1920, in the note of the Secretary General of the League of Nations addressed to the member states, as well as in the annual report of the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs of the RSFSR to the XI Congress of Soviets for 1920–1921.

However, on July 5, 1921, the Caucasian Bureau of the RCP(b), ignoring the corresponding decision of the League of Nations and the will of the people as a democratic instrument for determining the borders between Soviet Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as its own earlier adopted decision on the unification of Soviet Armenia and Artsakh, under the direct pressure of Joseph Stalin and with procedural violations, made a decision on the forcible separation of Artsakh from Armenia and the creation of a national autonomy with broad rights within the Azerbaijani SSR.

Thus, most of the disputed territories were transferred to Soviet Azerbaijan.

On July 7, 1923, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAR) was established on part of the territory of Artsakh and “Red Kurdistan” was artificially formed in parallel with it. The purpose of creating the latter was to eliminate the land connection between Soviet Armenia and the NKAR. In 1929, Red Kurdistan was abolished, and the lands of Artsakh were directly incorporated into the Azerbaijani SSR.

 

Concluding Remarks

In the context of deliberately delaying achieving a just settlement of the Karabakh conflict, it was decided to undertake decisive actions and aggression against Artsakh after 2018—the change of power in Armenia and the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic throughout the world.

This was because people and groups who would support the implementation of the Goble and Peters’s plans for the depopulation of Artsakh and the transfer of the Meghri corridor have come to power in Armenia.

In September 2020, the coalition of Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Pakistan, with the support of Israel and the connivance of a broader coalition, launched a 44-day aggression and war against Artsakh, which ended with the infamous trilateral statement of November 9.

Thereafter, only the final blow has remained.

With the silence and connivance of the international community and the OSCE Minsk Group member states, Azerbaijan carried out a nine-month unlawful and complete blockade of Artsakh, which led to the mass starvation of the Armenians of Artsakh, followed by ethnic cleansing, Genocide, and the depopulation of the Armenians of Artsakh on September 19, 2023.

This concludes the second stage of the Artsakh (Karabakh) conflict (1988–2023), given that the events of the first stage took place in 1918–1921.

It should be noted that, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statute of Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity of November 26, 1968, war crimes and crimes against humanity, including Genocide do not have any statute of limitations.

Here we repeat what we have stated more than once: the task of the Armenian people and the Armenian statehood, both yesterday and today, is the same – “National defense and the rights granted to the Armenian people.”

The Armenian political class and political thought, and the entire Armenian people, will enter the third stage of the Artsakh conflict, having learned all the bitter lessons of history and diplomacy, of law and legality, but with new thinking, a new spirit, and new strength—and this will happen very soon.

And the final fair settlement and Victory will belong to the Armenian people.

 

Tigran Pashabezyan

Prime Minister of the State of Armenia (Republic of Western Armenia)

September 12, 2025