The Armenian-Azerbaijani Border Dispute: Peace or Postponement

Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Aliyev met with President Trump at the White House to initial a peace agreement that was drafted in March. Initialing a peace agreement serves as a provisional step to approve the treaty’s final provisions, while signing it expresses a state's intent to be legally bound by its terms. After months of stalled negotiations, the peace agreement plans to end more than three decades of border conflict between the two nations. The outlined agreement includes a joint declaration of peace, a request to dissolve the OSCE Minsk Group, and a provision granting the United States sole development rights over the Nakhchivan exclave transit route that runs from Azerbaijan, through southern Armenia, and onwards towards Azerbaijan's exclave of Nakhchivan and Türkiye. The OSCE Minsk Group, co-chaired by the U.S., Russia, and France, was established in 1992 to facilitate peaceful negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Its dissolution signals the conclusion of one of the oldest international peace efforts in the post-Soviet era.The transit route would be referred to as the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity,” or TRIPP. The deal grants development rights to the United States for 99 years. TRIPP also is expected to include U.S. firm development of railways, pipelines, and other infrastructure projects. When asked, a senior White House official claimed the Armenian delegation suggested the name. The Armenian Prime Minister and Azerbaijani President marked the monumental agreement with a friendly handshake, followed by Trump clasping both leaders’ hands with his own. 

The Armenian-Azerbaijani border conflict has deep historical roots dating back to the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917. Following Czarist Russia’s dissolution, both Armenia and Azerbaijan declared independence in 1918 and clashed over territorial claims to the ethnically mixed Nagorno-Karabakh region. To control the conflict and maintain influence over the two peoples, the Soviet Union placed Nagorno-Karabakh within the borders of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, despite its majority Armenian population. Though this temporarily subdued the conflict, the decision planted long-term tension and persisting resentment between the two states. As the Soviet Union began to collapse, the conflict reignited as Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh sought reunification with their home country. These revolts led to ethnic violence, mass displacement, and an eventual war between Armenia and Azerbaijan from 1988 to 1994. After a Russian-brokered ceasefire, Armenia emerged in unofficial control of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Azerbaijani territories, but no lasting peace agreement was reached. In the period from 1994 to 2020, the nations were locked in a frozen stalemate, marked with minor clashes along the border. 

In 2020, a new war erupted, resulting in a decisive victory for Azerbaijan that saw it recapture much of the territory lost in the 1990s. More than seven thousand soldiers were killed, with hundreds of Armenian and Azerbaijani civilians killed and injured. The conflict began with both sides claiming shots were fired directly into their territory, and both initially rejected US, Russian, and international calls for peace negotiations. Ultimately, Azerbaijan admitted to initiating the offensive, but not before the conflict could be quelled. Despite a ceasefire, skirmishes along the border have continued, and both nations remain locked in a fragile and uneasy ceasefire marked by deep mistrust, competing national narratives, and unresolved questions of sovereignty and human rights. The most significant violation of the 2020 ceasefire was in 2022, when a two-day conflict broke out, resulting in hundreds of casualties. In 2023, following an Azerbaijani offensive on Karabakh, nearly all of the 100,000 Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh fled the region to Armenia.

The 2025 Armenian-Azerbaijani peace agreement represents a formal conclusion of one of the longest-running conflicts in the post-Soviet world, but in name only. The absence of a formal signature on the peace deal reveals how fragile the path to resolution remains. After more than three decades of conflict, distrust continues to shadow negotiations, and both nations remain wary of committing to terms that might threaten their national interests or political legitimacy at home. For example, the agreement may marginalize regional powers in favor of international influence and development initiatives. The proposed TRIPP stands as a potent symbol of what could be achieved: economic growth, regional connectivity, and lasting peace. But, without final signatures, it remains a vision rather than a reality. The unfinished nature of this agreement underscores that peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan cannot be declared through ceremony alone; it must be built through sustained trust, compromise, and accountability. Until then, the promise of peace remains just out of reach, suspended between the hope of a concrete peace treaty and the hesitation stalling both nations from signing the document.