A Nation Divided: Political Parties Respond to the US-Brokered Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Pact

Keghart Report, Yerevan, 13 August 2025

On 8 August, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev signed a U.S.-brokered peace framework at the White House, with U.S. President Donald Trump presiding over the ceremony. The agreement includes the establishment of a transport corridor—dubbed the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity”—linking Azerbaijan to its exclave Nakhchivan via southern Armenia. Reactions among Armenian political factions were deeply divided, setting the stage for intensified domestic debate.

The ruling Civil Contract party and its allies portray the accord as a pragmatic leap toward peace. Prime Minister Pashinyan called it “a solid foundation for establishing reliable and lasting peace,” emphasizing that the corridor would operate explicitly under Armenian jurisdiction and sovereignty. Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan echoed this reassurance, noting that the involvement of the U.S. adds “greater weight” to the deal’s legitimacy. This framing signals a deliberate attempt by Yerevan to assert that the pact, though mediated by Washington, does not undermine statehood.

Supportive voices beyond the ruling bloc—the Republic Party’s Aram Sargsyan and Hayk Marutyan’s New Force—welcomed the framework as a strategic deterrent. Sargsyan asserted that “no one will try to open the Syunik corridor by force anymore,” while Marutyan hailed it as perhaps the “most favourable solution” achievable with Western backing, given the circumstances. These endorsements signal a convergence among certain pro-Western segments of Armenia’s leadership in favor of accepting external, non-Russian mediation as a path to economic reinvigoration and regional integration.

By contrast, most opposition parties framed the agreement as an existential threat. The Hayastan Alliance, led by former President Robert Kocharyan, accused the pact of attempting to “legitimize the ethnic cleansing” of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh while marginalizing Armenia’s diplomatic platform. ARF Dashnaktsutyun leveled a similarly forceful critique, calling the declaration “a blow to Armenia’s sovereignty” and “anti‑state,” warning that it endorses a corridor model that compromises national territory.

The Republican Party—part of the I Have Honour bloc and led by former President Serzh Sargsyan—described the deal as a “dangerous capitulation,” arguing it legitimizes the fact of ethnic cleansing in Artsakh.

MP Tigran Abrahamyan of the same bloc denounced the peace deal as a tool to “eradicate” Artsakh’s legal status and suppress those defending the rights of the displaced Armenians.

Edmon Marukyan of Bright Armenia issued a more nuanced critique: the agreement lacks a map formally recognizing Armenia’s borders, leaving critical ambiguity in future delimitation. He warned of a “sword of Damocles” over the country—symbolizing how such vagueness could be exploited to Armenia’s detriment in subsequent negotiations.

Meanwhile, his colleague Davit Khazhakyan also denounced the US-backed pact, calling it “the most unfavorable, most unsuccessful and most flawed document” ever signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Davit Sanasaryan, leader of Sovereign Armenia Party, slammed the “euphoria” over the U.S.-backed deal, saying Armenia surrenders key positions while Azerbaijan concedes nothing. He called Aliyev’s delight telling, noting that even our POWs remain in jail, and warned that emotional celebration masks dangerous losses for Armenia. For the uninitiated, Sanasaryan was once a staunch ally of Pashinyan and headed the State Control Service, the country’s anti-corruption body. He was later arrested on corruption charges himself, but was released recently after the court cleared him of the charges.

Interestingly, Tigran Khzmalyan, leader of the European Party of Armenia, who has called for a pro-west pivot, also denounced the pact. He warned the US-backed deal “jeopardised Armenia’s sovereignty and state control over its southern border,” arguing that Pashinyan was signing it “under great pressure from the United States, Turkey, Israel and Azerbaijan.”

In an official statement, The European Party of Armenia further argued that the deal’s real aim is to boost Azerbaijan–Turkey trade at the expense of Armenia’s national interests, sovereignty, and European integration.

The party added that the absence of any mention of Russia in the agreement does not safeguard Armenia from future recolonization under Moscow’s historic yoke, as Pashinyan has not withdrawn from the EAEU, CIS, or CSTO, nor has he applied for EU membership.

Levon Ter-Petrosyan, Armenia’s first president post-independence from USSR, said he will not judge the U.S.-brokered Meghri agreement until it is implemented, noting the government calls it a major success while the opposition warns of disastrous consequences. However, he expressed concern over Iran’s mixed official reactions and Russia’s near-total silence.

Three diplomats — two former Foreign Ministers and an ambassador — have also raised their concerns and objections regarding the US-mediated Peace deal: Raffi Hovannisian, Vartan Oskanian, and Ara Papyan.

The National Democratic Alliance (Azgayin zhoghovrdavarakan bever), while welcoming US mediation efforts, accused Pashinyan’s Government of tacitly approving a peace deal that allows Azerbaijan to avoid committing to the return of Armenian prisoners of war and civilian hostages held in Baku. Insisting that Armenia got the short end of the stick, the party had called a rally on Friday, August 15, 2025, at Freedom Square in Yerevan to protest against the pact.

Others who have also been critical of what transpired in Washington DC include Paruyr Hayrikyan, President of the Union for National Self-Determination and former Prime Minister Hrant Bagratyan, who leads the Freedom Party.

While Hayrikyan called the agreement “disgusting”, Bagratyan wasn’t any kinder. He denounced the Washington signing as illegitimate, alleging Pashinyan “leased” parts of Armenia’s sovereign territory and effectively dissolved the OSCE Minsk Group, thus burying the Artsakh issue. He further branded 8 August 2025 one of the darkest days in our history and termed the steps treacherous and humiliating.

Interestingly, Gagik Tsarukyan has failed to issue a statement on the developments so far, with his Prosperous Armenia Party maintaining a similar silence on the issue.

Meanwhile, reactions on the streets of Yerevan mirror the political divide in the country. Some residents welcomed the corridor’s economic potential—hoping it could open alternative trade routes and reduce Armenia’s isolation and prevent escalation. Others remained unconvinced, finding little substance in a declaration that does not settle the fate of Nagorno-Karabakh or address the rights of displaced Armenians.

Whether the U.S.-brokered accord will usher in lasting peace or unravel under the weight of unresolved disputes remains uncertain. Much depends on whether Azerbaijan will fully honour its commitments—some of them left deliberately vague—and whether the arrangement can survive shifts in leadership in both Washington and Yerevan. The pact also introduces new variables into a delicate regional balance, raising the question of how Iran and Russia, both with deeply rooted interests in the South Caucasus, might respond to a deal that sidelines them. For Armenia, the coming months will reveal whether the agreement is a bridge to stability or another chapter in a long history of precarious truces.