In the midst of the diplomatic euphoria surrounding the imminent signing of the peace memorandum between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is urgent to pause and soberly analyze one of the most critical yet least understood aspects of the process: the proposed corridor that cuts through Syunik. What Baku insists on calling the “Zangezur Corridor” is not merely a border checkpoint for the transit of goods. It is, in fact, the cornerstone of a broader regional ambition: the “Turanian Corridor.”

What is the Turanian Corridor?

The term refers to a pan-Turanian vision promoted by Turkey for decades and revived in recent years through bilateral agreements, energy networks, and platforms such as the Organization of Turkic States. This vision has gained further traction with the growing strategic partnership between Ankara and Baku.

The idea is simple: to build an uninterrupted land route from Turkey to Central Asia, passing through Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan, and the Turkic states of the Caspian Sea — a modern “Turkic Silk Road” that bypasses Iran and is independent of Russia. Armenia, situated in the heart of the South Caucasus, is the geographical obstacle that separates Turkey from Azerbaijan. It is the link that this pan-regional vision seeks to pressure or break.

The disguise of “connectivity”

The Zangezur Corridor is publicly presented as a logistical solution, an infrastructure project for regional “interconnectivity.” However, Azerbaijan demands that the corridor be free of Armenian customs control, a demand that directly undermines Armenia’s sovereignty over its own territory.

“This is a diplomatic trap disguised as progress,” says Leonid Nersisyan, defense analyst at APRI Armenia. He warns that allowing an extraterritorial corridor could become a geopolitical Trojan horse, destabilizing the region and compromising Armenia’s long-term strategic viability.

British scholar Thomas de Waal further argues, “Armenia faces the paradox of being forced to concede functional territory without being at war. The Zangezur Corridor is not a logistical proposal, it is a geopolitical ultimatum.”

The map of encirclement

A glance at the map makes the urgency of the moment clear:

• To the west, Armenia has been blockaded by Turkey since 1993.

• To the east, Azerbaijan exerts pressure and demands direct access to Nakhichevan.

• If a corridor is imposed through Syunik without Armenian control, it would open an Ankara–Baku–Central Asia axis that would leave Armenia surrounded — with access only to the north (Georgia) and south (Iran).

This situation would jeopardize not only Armenia’s security but also its prospects for sustainable economic development.

What about peace?

The argument that this concession is the price of peace is profoundly flawed. True peace is built on justice, equity, and mutual recognition. It cannot be sustained through territorial coercion. Accepting conditions that compromise Armenia’s territorial integrity only reinforces the logic of blackmail and violence that has characterized Baku’s actions since 2020.

What can be done?

The answer is not necessarily outright rejection, but rather a sovereign, intelligent strategy: any transit concession must be conditioned on principles of reciprocity, oversight, taxation, and international guarantees. Armenia must defend Syunik not only for its geography, but for its history, identity, and strategic centrality.

As international relations expert Anna Ohanyan (Stonehill College, USA) warns, “What is at stake today is more than a corridor. It is the model of the country Armenia aspires to be. To yield under pressure without building a firm, sovereign narrative is to accept a peace without dignity.”

Conclusion

The “Turanian Corridor” is not a conspiratorial myth or fringe concept. It is a carefully woven strategy to reshape the Caucasus in favor of the Turkish-Azerbaijani axis, aided by the passive complicity of external actors and the silence of those who should be speaking out.

To defend Syunik is not provocation. It is a national survival imperative.