The Armenian Foreign Minister, Ararat Mirzoyan, voiced serious concern that Baku might press for a non-territorial corridor linking the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic with the rest of Azerbaijan, effectively threading through Armenian lands. This warning came as he outlined the broader risks during a public briefing and reflections on recent regional developments.
Mirzoyan argued that Azerbaijan has repeatedly resorted to force against both Armenia proper and the Armenian-populated areas of Nagorno-Karabakh. He cautioned that those actions, along with provocative rhetoric, appear aimed at creating a corridor that would bypass Armenian sovereignty while still traversing its territory. He stressed that such a move would be controlled by no Armenian authority and would be subject to geopolitical maneuvering beyond Yerevan’s reach. In his remarks to a global audience at the United Nations General Assembly, Mirzoyan reiterated that this corridor would be a unilateral insertion into the regional map, raising concerns about sovereignty, security, and the potential for new clashes or escalations.
The Armenian diplomat underscored that the idea of an extra-territorial route is unacceptable to Yerevan and to the international community at large. He urged the international community to consider the legal and humanitarian ramifications of a corridor that effectively alters borders and raises questions about compliance with existing agreements, international law, and the commitments that have shaped the regional peace framework in recent years.
In a related development, former President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan offered comments about the post-conflict period in Karabakh. He asserted that subsequent to Azerbaijan’s actions in Karabakh, the country now finds a more favorable environment for advancing a peace deal with Armenia. Aliyev’s remarks suggested a shift toward negotiations that could formalize a new balance of interests in the region, although the path to a durable settlement remains complex and multifaceted, with sensitive issues still central to the dialogue between the two sides.
Observers note that the current discussions touch on several long-standing issues, including mutual recognition of territorial integrity and the resolution of disputes stemming from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Both sides have historically placed emphasis on sovereignty and regional stability, and any new proposals—such as a corridor—could redefine the practical realities on the ground. The international environment, including the roles of major powers and regional actors, will likely influence how such proposals are framed and whether they gain traction in future negotiations.
Analysts in Canada and the United States emphasize the importance of maintaining open lines of communication and building confidence measures that reduce the risk of miscalculation. They advocate for transparent processes that involve international mediation, verification mechanisms, and adherence to international law. The evolving situation requires careful monitoring of ceasefire commitments, humanitarian access, and the protection of civilians in disputed areas. Stakeholders continue to stress that durable peace rests on respect for territorial integrity, mutual recognition, and a clear, globally endorsed framework for resolving disputes through dialogue rather than unilateral actions.
From a policy perspective, the emphasis is on balancing national security concerns with regional stability and the rights of communities affected by the conflict. The potential corridor concept, if pursued, would demand rigorous scrutiny, including impact assessments, travel and trade arrangements, and safeguards that prevent any erosion of sovereignty. International observers highlight that any such initiative must be anchored in verifiable agreements and subject to oversight to guarantee that it does not become a tool for destabilization or coercive diplomacy. The overarching goal remains a durable, peaceful settlement that respects the dignity and autonomy of all communities involved while preserving the integrity of internationally recognized borders.
In the broader context, the ongoing dialogue reflects the enduring fragility of the South Caucasus and the necessity for sustained international engagement. The region’s stability bears consequences well beyond its borders, influencing energy routes, regional security architectures, and the prospects for reconciliation between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The conversations continue to be closely watched by governments and international organizations that seek to prevent recurrence of violence and to promote a framework where both sides can pursue secure, prosperous futures within clearly defined legal parameters. The path forward remains intricate, but the preference among many observers is for solutions grounded in legal legitimacy, verifiable commitments, and a shared commitment to peace that does not compromise sovereignty for expediency.