By Akbar Novruz

The South Caucasus is once again at the centre of intense international attention. From Washington to Brussels, and from Moscow to Yerevan, foreign policy circles are ramping up efforts to influence the fate of the long-anticipated peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia. While calls for peace grow louder, the fundamental issues remain unresolved, and the political backdrop in Armenia is growing increasingly turbulent.

A renewed wave of diplomatic activity has unfolded in recent weeks, marking the second such surge since Baku and Yerevan announced that they had agreed on the main text of the peace agreement. U.S. and EU officials have become more engaged, and statements about peace and regional cooperation are now more frequent, including from U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Yet, conspicuously absent from these statements is any mention of one of the most critical issues: the final dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group—a group that Azerbaijan considers obsolete and counterproductive.

Silence on the Minsk Group, vague promises on development

All parties involved in the process—whether from the West or Russia—are well aware of Azerbaijan’s two key expectations: the removal of any reference to the OSCE Minsk Group and constitutional amendments in Armenia that eliminate territorial claims against Azerbaijan. These are not ambiguous demands; they have been clearly articulated by Azerbaijani officials on numerous occasions.

Despite this clarity, none of the major actors—including the United States, Russia, or France—have voiced support for dissolving the Minsk Group, a format that Azerbaijan views as undermining real peace efforts. Instead, the U.S. and EU have opted to speak in generalities, promising development and investment in the South Caucasus. But what this “development” entails remains vague. The EU, for example, touts the Middle Corridor project and future infrastructure investments, yet the corridor itself is still not fully operational. Then, Russia, on the other hand, aims to revive the "3+3 Format", which has been in a stalemate for a long time.

Meanwhile, one of the core assumptions underlying peace—namely, the unblocking of regional transportation routes—remains outside the framework of the treaty. For Azerbaijan, the opening of communications is conditional: there must be unimpeded passage for Azerbaijani citizens and cargo through the Zangezur corridor. Without this guarantee, Baku is unlikely to proceed with opening transit links.

Steve Daines’ visit underscores U.S. geopolitical recalibration

Senator Steve Daines, a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and a key voice in the Central Asia Caucus, recently visited Baku, Tbilisi, and Yerevan—stopping in that particular order. The sequence itself is telling. Daines’ visit underscores Washington’s renewed interest in ensuring stability in the South Caucasus and positioning the region as a key gateway to Central Asia, particularly in the context of the evolving Middle Corridor.

In Baku, Daines was received by President Ilham Aliyev. The senator emphasized the growing importance of bilateral ties and praised Azerbaijan’s strategic role, particularly its infrastructure and logistical capabilities, which are central to the functioning of East–West transit routes. He also highlighted Azerbaijan’s contribution to securing Kabul airport during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, reaffirming long-standing security cooperation between the two countries.

Daines’ broader message was clear: The United States sees the South Caucasus as part of “Greater Central Asia,” a concept gaining traction in U.S. policy circles and promoted by institutions like the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and the American Foreign Policy Council. This vision reframes the region—not as an appendage of Europe—but as an integral link in a vast geopolitical chain extending from Mongolia to the Caspian Sea and beyond.

In Georgia, Senator Daines met with Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze. The meeting, which also touched on regional peace and U.S.-Georgia relations, reflected the new administration's “America First” approach. Kobakhidze emphasized the need to renew strategic ties with the United States and pushed back against attempts by what he termed the “Deep State” to derail cooperation. Daines also met with opposition leaders, though his focus remained on pragmatism and regional stability—not ideological or regime-change agendas.

In Yerevan, Senator Daines reiterated U.S. expectations for peace and investment in Armenia, while stressing the importance of real reforms. He made it clear that for Armenia to benefit from regional economic integration, it must drop territorial claims against Azerbaijan and cease revanchist policies. Only then can Yerevan hope to participate in the emerging architecture of Greater Central Asia.

Pashinyan vs. Church and the opposition

While international diplomacy continues, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan faces growing domestic unrest. His government has entered into open conflict with the Armenian Apostolic Church, led by Catholicos Karekin II. The Church has accused the government of trying to silence its influence, especially as it voices concern over the state’s concessions in peace negotiations with Azerbaijan.

Pashinyan’s friction with the Church is only the latest episode in a broader political struggle. Since 2021, the prime minister has neutralized much of the opposition—from military generals to former presidents. However, recent local elections in Gyumri and Parakar dealt a blow to the ruling party, invigorating the opposition and triggering early signs of election campaigning, even though the next parliamentary vote is not until spring 2026.

Catholicos Karekin II, and the clergy stated that this "disgraceful" campaign was conducted with the aim of "suppressing the voice of the Church and reducing its social influence," linking it to Azerbaijan's persistent demands against Armenia.

"The Armenian Church, realising its obligations, will resolutely continue its mission of spiritual salvation and national protection, and will constantly protect the supreme interests of the state and nation, our sacred values, by resisting harmful and destructive processes," the church said in a statement following an extraordinary meeting in Echmiadzin.

The opposition, on the other hand, appears to be testing two strategies: one involving fragmented participation followed by post-election unification (as in Gyumri), and the other, backing a charismatic local figure to defeat Pashinyan’s party directly (as in Parakar). Pashinyan has responded with what some observers call “carpet bombing”—intensifying anti-corruption investigations, summoning former leaders to court, and now turning up the heat on the Church.

The resignation of Armenia’s police chief on June 3 also fits into this pattern. A career officer not aligned with Pashinyan’s inner circle, his departure allows the prime minister to fully consolidate control over internal security ahead of possible unrest. The new Interior Ministry leadership—comprising a female minister and a former NGO operative—raises questions about operational command during future protests, particularly from elite riot units like the Red Berets. One might conclude that the dispute with the Catholicos is part of the preparation for the parliamentary elections scheduled for 2026. The aggressive rhetoric aims to polarise society, strengthen the ruling party, and address foreign actions. It’s crucial to note that the Church, as an independent political entity, will actively seek partnerships with such forces.

Consequently, Pashinyan’s immediate challenge is linked to the 2026 elections, while his long-term objective involves overcoming the Armenian Church's institutional power. This latter task seems to be significantly more challenging.

Despite the rise in international rhetoric about peace in the South Caucasus, the process remains fragile. True stability requires clarity and sincerity from all actors, particularly on the role of obsolete mechanisms like the OSCE Minsk Group and the specific guarantees that ensure communications will be unblocked. Vague promises about development will not suffice.

Senator Steve Daines’ visit signals a more strategic and regionally integrated approach from the United States, but it also highlights that peace is not a one-sided demand. Armenia must demonstrate real political will, both externally and internally, for peace to become a reality.

Meanwhile, as Pashinyan struggles to maintain his grip amid mounting internal dissent, the outcome of this political balancing act could shape not just Armenia’s future, but the trajectory of the entire region.