Will the Washington Agreement Bring Lasting Peace to the South Caucasus?

The Washington Agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan has sparked a mix of hope, doubt, and cautious realism among Armenians.

AnewZ spoke directly with people across Armenia, gathering a spectrum of views — from optimistic visions of reconciliation to warnings of hidden risks and geopolitical manoeuvring.

Hopes for Economic Cooperation and Stability

Some interviewees told AnewZ they see the deal as a rare opportunity to foster economic cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan, with the United States acting as guarantor and mediator in management and security governance. Supporters hope the agreement will bring short-term economic gains and an end to years of instability. They envision open roads, active trade, and a chance for Armenia to develop free from the shadow of war. For many, peace is simply the better alternative to conflict — a path that would allow families to live without fear, and neighbours to rebuild trust.

Deep Reservations and Strategic Concerns

Others, in conversations with AnewZ, voiced strong reservations. They warned that Armenia’s concessionary policies could create new territorial disputes in the future. Some feared that, within a decade, Armenia might lose its sovereignty or be absorbed into another political entity if current policies persist. Critics pointed to the interests of powerful states such as the U.S. and the U.K., arguing that the ultimate beneficiaries may be those who gain control of Armenia’s valuable mining assets in Jermuk’s Amulsar and Syunik. Without customs control or revenue from new routes, they believe Armenia would gain little.

Voices of Uncertainty

A number of people told AnewZ they remain undecided. They acknowledge peace as a worthy goal but question whether political rhetoric will truly change after the signing. Skepticism runs deep, rooted in the belief that great powers act in their own interest and that promises can shift with circumstances. These individuals called for inclusive negotiations that reflect the will of all citizens, not just political leaders.

The Zangezur Corridor Question

The proposed Zangezur Corridor was also a key subject in AnewZ’s interviews. Proponents viewed it as a normal transit route that could benefit the entire region, facilitating trade and communication between people. They stressed reciprocity — roads and agreements must serve all parties equally. Some, however, opposed the “corridor” concept outright, insisting that any route must remain under Armenia’s sovereign control. Others saw it as part of a larger geopolitical project, linking Turkey with Central Asia under the vision of a “Great Turan.”

Armenia’s Geopolitical Direction

When asked by AnewZ about Armenia’s broader orientation, many advocated for closer ties with Europe, seeing EU membership as a path to security, visa-free travel, and economic growth. France was often named as Armenia’s most reliable friend. Supporters believed integration with Europe would strengthen democracy, competitiveness, and living standards.

Yet not all agreed. Some argued that Armenia must first put its domestic affairs in order before looking outward. Others rejected EU integration entirely, warning that Armenia’s economic and geographic realities make such alignment impractical for now.

Between Peace and Realpolitik

The reactions AnewZ gathered reflect Armenia’s complex position — caught between a desire for peace and the realities of geopolitical power. For some, the deal offers a historic chance to close a painful chapter. For others, it carries the risk of deepening dependency and eroding sovereignty.

Whether it brings lasting peace will depend not only on the terms inked in Washington, but on the political will, mutual respect, and safeguards put in place long after the signatures dry.

Copied