Armenia’s “Crossroads of Peace” lacks substance to deliver regional integration

By Akbar Novruz

Armenia’s proposed “Crossroads of Peace” initiative has stirred public and expert debate as Yerevan attempts to project the idea of a regional logistics hub involving its neighboring countries. Framed as a peace-oriented infrastructure project, it is being marketed as a sign of Armenia’s willingness to cooperate and integrate. But how realistic is this project when analyzed through political, economic, geographic, and timing lenses?

Economic expert Eldaniz Amirov, commenting to Azernews, dissected the project’s viability from multiple perspectives. From a political perspective, Amirov said that the absence of trust and ongoing intra-regional tensions have rendered the political climate unsuitable for this project. According to him, Armenia’s aggressive policies and inconsistent regional stance over the past decades have significantly eroded confidence in its intentions.

“The lack of trust and the existence of intra-regional contradictions have created a completely inappropriate environment for this project from a political perspective. Because Armenia's aggressive policy and double standards in the region in recent decades have created a strong distrust of this country. The main reason why regional countries, even Iran, are cautious about this project is the lack of guarantees of political stability. At the same time, political divisions within Armenia and within the government, indecision, and frequent changes in strategic course call into question the sustainability and stability of the project.”

From an economic standpoint, the project's prospects are even dimmer:

“The lack of financial resources and the weakness of investor interest make it impossible to economically support this project. Because the Armenian economy is currently facing deep structural problems. The serious increase in external debt and the weakness of investment flows make it difficult to finance such a huge infrastructure project. On the other hand, since there are alternative corridors in the region (the Middle Corridor, the North-South Corridor, and the potential Zangezur Corridor), the 'Crossroads of Peace' project cannot be a priority for international investors.”

Geographically, Amirov highlights that Armenia’s natural and regional disadvantages undermine the concept from the outset:

“The disadvantage of the territory and the existence of alternative routes also make this project unfavorable from a geopolitical and geographical point of view. Because the geography of Armenia is not considered favorable for transport corridors. It does not seem realistic for a country with no access to the sea, mountainous terrain and tense relations with its neighbors to become a logistics center.”

Timing-wise, the proposal appears out of sync with the fast-moving dynamics of regional integration:

“At a time when the world and the region are searching for a new global economic order, Armenia's belated and unprepared initiative is already lagging behind global trends. Also, the legal and technical framework of the project is unclear. This creates serious problems in terms of medium and long-term planning.”

Amirov concluded that despite its diplomatic branding, the initiative lacks credibility without fundamental shifts in Armenia’s regional approach:

“In short, the ‘Crossroads of Peace’ project is a project put forward by Armenia with the desire to turn itself into the center of the region. In fact, this is a weak initiative in political, economic and strategic terms. A more realistic and beneficial path for Armenia is to restore normal neighborly relations and take advantage of Azerbaijan's internationally recognized corridors. Only after a peace treaty and Azerbaijan gives its ‘OK’ to Armenia's participation in regional projects can any of their project proposals be discussed and supported for implementation.”