The Armenian Parliamentary elections, which concluded earlier this month, yielded a highly polarised outcome, underscoring the deep ideological divide between the incumbent Civil Contract party and the primary opposition coalition, Strong Armenia.

This domestic polarisation raises fundamental questions regarding the alignment of Armenia’s strategic priorities, and whether the current policy path reflects a genuine national consensus. But beyond the domestic ramifications, the electoral verdict carries profound implications for the broader region – the South (of) Caucasus and beyond. The foreign policy trajectory of the new administration will fundamentally dictate the future of regional integration, the role of trans-regional transport corridors and Armenia’s strategic course with both regional and non-regional actors.

In this context, the incumbent government’s promotion of the “Crossroads of Peace” initiative with its goal of infrastructural connectivity that can serve as a mechanism for development and lead to the normalisation of relations with both Turkey and Azerbaijan stands as a cornerstone of its regional strategy.

At first glance, Armenia’s proactive commitment to multi-vector engagements represents a constructive approach to regional integration and is a welcome catalyst for domestic economic development. However, looking beyond immediate financial dividends, sustainable integration would require a comprehensive framework that balances trade optimisation with security imperatives. The operationalisation of new transit routes must be carefully scrutinised, particularly in terms of how they weigh against long-term strategic risks. Specifically, in the event of mismanagement, these transit nodes risk isolating Armenia from its established partnership networks or altering traditional, mutually beneficial links with trusted partners.

The viability of the government’s regional integration model is increasingly challenged by escalating rhetoric from Baku. Following its military success in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) conflict, Azerbaijan has increasingly leveraged the “Western Azerbaijan” narrative and “Great Return” that target the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia more proactively since 2022.

The strategic importance Azerbaijan and Turkey place on the transit route is demonstrated by their continuous use of the term “Zangezur Corridor” while Armenia refers to it as TRIPP. These divergent terms convey different perspectives of regional order and connectedness rather than just a simple disagreement in nomenclature. The corridor’s ongoing depiction as a strategic asset raises worries that it could be used as a political leverage tool, undermining the confidence-building efforts required for a long-lasting peace agreement.

Economic connectivity cannot safely precede the consolidation of state sovereignty. And for Armenia, prioritising sovereignty is the only viable defence against a fragile peace and the hazards of asymmetric geopolitical manipulation. Hence, Armenia’s strategic calculations must firmly and firstly anchor itself in the nation’s ontological security requirements, remaining cognizant of the fact that transport routes are rarely politically neutral and that entering states will naturally convert logistical access into strategic leverage.

This reinforces the principle that even with frameworks for reciprocal economic growth, a convergence of core national security interests is never guaranteed and that the state’s foundational security matrix must first satisfy its ontological survival needs, ensuring a stable and predictable national existence.

Eventually, to provide a comprehensive, long-term strategic vision, policy planners must systemically address these structural trade-offs to ensure that regional connectivity does not inadvertently compromise national sovereignty or partnership ties.

In due course, the involvement of any third state in the South (of) Caucasus  “shall be assessed on the basis of how it will affect the security situation in the region. The “Crossroads of Peace” initiative functions as a diplomatic tool that offers Armenia a normative framework, but it is also shadowed by strategic risks. It’s an inclusive vision – inviting diverse global and regional powers that simultaneously seek to prevent any single power from exerting a monopoly and to dilute excessive external influence. At the same time, this inclusivity risks geopolitical paralysis when competing interests collide such as the USA-Iran tensions or Azerbaijan’s demands for extraterritoriality, leading to strategic overstretch.

From a functionalist perspective, prioritising a specific corridor, such as the North-South corridor, offers more “material” results. Unlike the broader peace proposal, this axis can generate structural power (by building specific transit infrastructure that enhances Armenia’s resilience) regardless of immediate regional peace settlements, thereby securing its institutional and material development.

In light of recent regional escalations, a prudent strategic stance and collaborative bilateral relationship between Armenia and its traditional partners would not only serve regional balance but also integrate Armenia into a broader geopolitical reality. On one hand, it connects Armenia to the parallel security and economic hubs increasingly prioritised by Russia and China through their institutional ties with Iran. On the other hand, it intersects with India’s expanding strategic footprint in the region, particularly through its logistical commitment to the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and Iran’s Chabahar port. By positioning itself at this critical nexus, Armenia can engage with major global stakeholders who prioritise systemic security and long-term economic resilience. This calculated approach would also allow Yerevan to diversify its economic partnerships and insulate itself against unilateral regional blockades. By supporting this continuity, Armenia can effectively navigate the complexities of the current Eurasian institutional architecture and ensure its own political stability.