Aliyev warns Armenia: amend constitution or risk fallout

YEREVAN—Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has issued a series of pointed warnings toward Armenia, linking the implementation of the so-called “Zangezur Corridor” and the broader peace process to constitutional changes in Yerevan—signaling that any deviation from recent U.S.-brokered agreements could spark serious regional fallout.

In an interview with Al Arabiya, Aliyev declared that the controversial Zangezur Corridor—now rebranded as the TRIPP route (Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity)—is “likely to be implemented in the near future,” emphasizing that U.S. President Donald Trump’s symbolic endorsement has given the plan new momentum. 

“Now that Trump has given his name to the Zangezur Corridor, I am confident it will be implemented soon,” Aliyev said.

Beneath the promotional rhetoric, Aliyev issued a series of unmistakable threats. He demanded international security guarantees for the route, claiming that Armenian assurances were insufficient to protect Azerbaijani travelers. 

Advertisement

“They should not feel unsafe traveling between Nakhichevan and the rest of Azerbaijan. Given our long history of conflict and hostility, we cannot rely solely on Armenia,” he said—a statement that many observers interpret as justification for Azerbaijan to exert control over Armenian territory.

Aliyev went further, directly linking the official signing of a peace agreement to changes in Armenia’s constitution. “The peace treaty has not been signed yet for one specific reason,” he said. “There is still a provision in Armenia’s constitution that questions Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. As far as we understand, they plan to change that. Once that change is made—once the territorial claims against Azerbaijan are removed—the peace agreement will be signed.”

Though an official treaty has not yet been concluded, Aliyev emphasized that both sides “pre-signed” the deal in Washington on August 8-9, in the presence of President Trump. 

“This alone marks the end of a war that has lasted over 30 years,” he claimed. Still, the Azerbaijani leader made it clear that any Armenian government—current or future—that deviates from the Washington agreement will face serious political and geopolitical consequences.

“If Armenia strays from the agreement signed in Washington, it will significantly damage its relationship with the United States,” Aliyev warned.

He also issued a stark warning about retaliating if Armenia backs away from recognizing Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. “If Armenia stops recognizing our borders, we’ll do the same with theirs. And who will win and who will lose in that scenario? I think the answer is obvious,” he said, reinforcing the perception that Azerbaijan is willing to escalate tensions if its demands are not met.

Although Aliyev attempted to frame the corridor as a mutually beneficial trade route that would bring transit revenue to Armenia, his remarks cast a long shadow over the fragile peace process. Far from signaling reconciliation, they suggest that Azerbaijan sees its military and political dominance as leverage to extract concessions and dictate terms.

“This is not a personal agreement between me and Pashinyan; it is a state-level treaty,” Aliyev concluded. “I am confident that any future Armenian government will have the wisdom not to undo what has already been agreed.”

In the wake of the August 8-9 brokered agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Washington, Aliyev has adopted a markedly aggressive tone, issuing warnings that cast doubt on Baku’s commitment to lasting stability.

In a speech cited by the Azerbaijani newspaper Adalet, Aliyev stated bluntly that “Azerbaijan must be prepared for unpredictable conflicts,” referencing what he described as global instability and uncertainty. 

“We want peace,” he said, “but the bloodied history must never be erased from our memory. We must not be deceived by sweet words—we must remain vigilant.”

Aliyev further stressed that Azerbaijan’s only real guarantee of security is its armed forces, underscoring a militarized posture at odds with recent diplomatic developments. His remarks came only days after the Washington talks, during which both Armenia and Azerbaijan appeared to take a decisive step toward formal peace.

In stark contrast, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has conveyed a notably restrained approach to national defense spending. “Most likely, there will be no significant increase in defense expenditures in the 2026 state budget,” Pashinyan said, calling the decision “logical” under current circumstances.

Aliyev’s bellicose rhetoric—paired with warnings about future instability—has raised concerns that Azerbaijan may be positioning itself for renewed escalation, even while international efforts to normalize relations are underway.

As part of this shifting regional posture, Baku has also been seeking to dismantle the OSCE Minsk Group, the primary international body tasked with mediating the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov recently confirmed that a formal decision to dissolve the Minsk Group and its affiliated structures is expected by September 1.

“Azerbaijan has taken serious steps toward establishing lasting peace in the region,” Bayramov said. “Our country has made it clear that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is an internal matter of Azerbaijan.”

The sidelining of the Minsk Group was reportedly one of the agreements reached during the Washington negotiations, signaling a dramatic shift away from multilateral diplomacy toward a bilateral, Azerbaijan-dominated framework—with potentially far-reaching implications for regional peace and security.

In line with Azerbaijan’s expansionist policies, Pashinyan delivered an address on August 18, making clear that his government does not consider the right of return for displaced Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) a realistic objective. His remarks, delivered via video address, reflect a broader strategic shift that has gradually emerged in recent years—one that places domestic integration of refugees over long-standing calls for repatriation.

“I do not consider the notion of return for displaced persons from Karabakh to be realistic,” Pashinyan said. “In general, I believe bilateral discussion of refugee return—of those displaced since the start of the conflict—is dangerous and undermines the peace being established between Armenia and Azerbaijan.”

Pashinyan warned that raising the issue of refugee return, whether by Armenia or Azerbaijan, could destabilize the emerging peace process, calling it a “harmful and dangerous topic.” He added that this view has already been conveyed to Baku, suggesting mutual understanding on avoiding such discussions.

“Any attempts to revive these topics will not help the refugees themselves, but will instead become a new source of tension between the states,” Pashinyan said. “In my view, all those who oppose this strategy—knowingly or not—end up feeding into a logic of conflict revival.”

Pashinyan also outlined his government’s current policy vision for displaced Artsakh Armenians, placing full emphasis on permanent resettlement in Armenia: “Our perception of the future for our compatriots displaced from Karabakh is this: With the support of Armenia and the international community, they must settle, live and thrive in the Republic of Armenia as full citizens.”

The remarks reflect a culmination of policy direction that has become increasingly visible over the past year, aligning in some respects with Azerbaijan’s insistence that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is fully resolved and internal to its territory. Pashinyan’s framing marks a clear departure from decades of Armenian policy that prioritized the right of return and self-determination for the region’s Armenian population.

His remarks have drawn strong criticism from key figures in Armenia’s political and diplomatic spheres, particularly for what some view as a premature abandonment of core national principles. Former Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian issued a pointed response, accusing the prime minister of shaping a “defeatist narrative” rather than reflecting political or legal reality.

“When Nikol Pashinyan declares that the return of Armenians to Nagorno-Karabakh is ‘unrealistic,’ he is not describing the reality—he is creating a narrative to justify his own failures,” Oskanian wrote in a public statement. “In truth, the right of return is not only realistic, it is enshrined in international law, reaffirmed by European institutions and even acknowledged—at times—by Azerbaijan itself.”

Oskanian argued that the current perception of “unrealism” is not dictated by international law or diplomacy, but by the Armenian government’s unwillingness to prioritize or even raise the issue on the international stage. Citing global precedents, he pointed to Ukraine’s approach to territorial sovereignty as an example of how political will shapes international response:

“History shows that international support follows political will. President Zelensky maintains a firm line, and Western capitals respond in kind. When he signals potential compromise, even his strongest supporters recalibrate their positions. That is how global politics functions—leaders set the tone; others follow. Armenia is no exception.”

Oskanian further noted that Armenia already has legal and diplomatic tools at its disposal—citing the International Court of Justice ruling obligating Azerbaijan to guarantee safe return for displaced persons, as well as calls by the European Parliament and Switzerland’s Federal Assembly for dialogue and return guarantees for Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh.

“These are not abstract ideas. They are actionable instruments—waiting for Armenia’s government to take up and implement,” Oskanian emphasized. “Pashinyan’s silence doesn’t erase these achievements; it simply ignores and devalues them.”

Concluding his statement, Oskanian insisted that the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is not ‘closed,’ nor is the right of return a fantasy but rather, a principle grounded in international law and deeply rooted in the Armenian national consciousness. 

“When Armenia once again has a government with the will to protect its people, the international community will follow its lead,” he wrote.