We are witnessing the escalation of one of the combat operations within the Great Game 2.0:
“It has been more than five months since the historic meeting at the White House, in which US President Donald Trump hosted Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan for a breakthrough peace agreement that, once finalized, could bring an end to the longest-running conflict in the South Caucasus… Trump, having rightly received credit for brokering the agreement, now needs to see it through to completion to ensure the peace is durable rather than symbolic”[1],
specifically:
“The first test will be Pashinyan’s political stability as Armenia heads into parliamentary elections this June. While he has shown political courage in pursuing reconciliation with Azerbaijan, hard-line nationalist forces inside Armenia continue to challenge both his leadership and the legitimacy of the peace process… Closely linked to this is the sensitive but critical issue of Armenia’s constitution. Azerbaijan has been clear that this matter must be addressed before Baku can ratify a final peace agreement. Armenia’s constitution contains an implied territorial claim against Azerbaijan through its reference to the 1990 declaration of independence… A third issue that urgently requires progress – though not necessarily full completion – is the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. This initiative is intended to meet Azerbaijan’s long-standing demand for transit access between Azerbaijan proper and its exclave of Nakhchivan through Armenian territory… The fourth challenge is pressure from Russia and Iran, particularly in the lead-up to Armenia’s elections. Neither Moscow nor Tehran welcomes Washington’s role in brokering the peace, as both view the South Caucasus as part of their traditional sphere of influence. The Trump route proposal is especially sensitive for both capitals”[1].
President Trump is being openly and insistently urged to resolve these issues – to provide an “impulse to the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan.” The nature of this peace for Armenia has been articulated with clarity by Azerbaijani President Aliyev:
” Today, it is crucial to intensify efforts to ensure the return of Azerbaijanis forcibly expelled from Armenia within the framework of the right of return… The restoration and protection of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in Armenia constitute a legitimate demand of the Azerbaijani people… We believe that the peaceful members of the Community of Western Azerbaijan will return to the lands of their ancestors”[2], ” As for Karabakh and Eastern Zangezur, one cannot overlook the subject of Azerbaijan’s history. Regrettably, for years, the Armenian side and its diaspora have distorted our history, and this propaganda persists… nearly all toponyms on the territory of present-day Armenia are of Azerbaijani origin: there is no Lake Sevan, there is Lake Göyçə. These maps were not our creation – they were drawn by Tsarist Russia, which resettled Armenians from Iran and Eastern Anatolia to Karabakh to alter the ethnic composition.”[3].
In effect, the first step will be to sever Armenia’s Syunik region via the extraterritorial Zangezur Corridor (also dubbed the “Trump Path to International Peace and Prosperity”) and populate it with Azerbaijanis. This corridor holds no relevance for the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (the “Middle Corridor”), which operates efficiently through Georgia. The Zangezur Corridor serves Turkey’s interests – as a land bridge for penetration into Central Asia.
Subsequently, the entirety of Armenia will become Western Azerbaijan. It is telling that Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Defense has advanced the argument that this land was fashioned into Armenia by the Russians, and that Yerevan and its environs are historically Azerbaijani [4].
Yet, the core issue is not even the liquidation of Armenia. As clear-thinking Western analysts correctly observe, “si les États-Unis souhaitent éviter la reproduction d’un “cénario ukrainien” sur les frontières méridionales de la Russie, ils doivent impérativement gérer – et non attiser – les tensions entre la Turquie et la Russie dans le Caucase du Sud et en Asie centrale”[5], more specifically, “mettre fin à la compétition d’influence en Arménie et en Géorgie “, to thwart the establishment by Turkey and its proxy, Azerbaijan, of a “Turkic” NATO affiliate on Russia’s soft underbelly, and to cease the eradication of the deep-rooted cultural, economic, intellectual, and military-political bonds linking the South Caucasus and Central Asia to Russia.
Otherwise “le Caucase du Sud et l’Asie centrale pourraient devenir le prochain foyer d’un affrontement indirect entre l’OTAN et la Russie – avec des conséquences potentiellement plus vastes encore que celles de la guerre en Ukraine”[5]. Therein lies the fundamental problem.
1 https://www.hudson.org/security-alliances/armenia-azerbaijan-peace-process-requires-momentum-luke-coffey
“Armenia-Azerbaijan Peace Process Requires Momentum” (Luke Coffey, Hudson Institute, Jan 10, 2026);
2 https://1news.az/news/20251205101122123-Ilkham-Aliev-obratilsya-k-uchastnikam-konferentsii-po-kulturnomu-naslediyu-i-pravu-na-vozvrashcenie-azerbaidzhantsev-izgnannykh-iz-Armenii
“Ильхам Алиев обратился к участникам конференции по культурному наследию и праву на возвращение азербайджанцев, изгнанных из Армении” (First News Media, 05/12/2025);
3 https://haqqin.az/news/365008
“Ильхам Алиев: “Нет озера Севан, есть озеро Гёйча” (Haqqin.az, 3 ноября 2025);
4 https://mod.gov.az/en/the-history-of-iravan-410/
“The History of Irevan”, Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Azerbaijan;
5 https://lediplomate.media/analyse-comment-washington-prevenir-nouveau-conflit-otan-russie-caucase-asie-centrale/
“Comment Washington peut prévenir un nouveau face-à-face OTAN–Russie dans le Caucase et en Asie centrale” (Olivier d’Auzon, Le Diplomat, 22/12/2025).