U.S., Armenia advance $9B energy framework as transit corridor and sovereignty questions intensify

2026-02-11 - 17:37

YEREVAN — Just days before U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance arrived in Yerevan, the Armenian government announced that parliamentary elections would be held on June 7. The Feb. 7 announcement — coming 48 hours before Vance’s visit and immediately preceding his trip to Baku — underscored the intersection of domestic political timing and high-level diplomacy. Vance’s two-day visit marked the first time a sitting U.S. vice president traveled to Armenia. The trip was presented as an effort to advance the Washington-brokered peace accord between Armenia and Azerbaijan, signed nearly six months ago at the White House. During talks in Yerevan, Vance and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan highlighted several initiatives, including significant cooperation in the nuclear energy sector. The so-called “123 Agreement” allows the United States to license nuclear technology and equipment to Armenia, specifically small modular reactors. Vance said the deal could support up to $5 billion (€4.2 billion) in initial U.S. exports, with an additional $4 billion in longer-term fuel supply and maintenance contracts. The agreement does not obligate Armenia to purchase U.S. reactors but provides a framework through which Armenia may choose among global suppliers, including firms from Russia, China, France and South Korea. Pashinyan described the deal as a strategic step toward diversifying Armenia’s energy sector, which currently relies on the aging Russian-built Metsamor nuclear power plant. Beyond nuclear cooperation, Vance indicated that the United States is prepared to expand exports of advanced technology, including computer chips and surveillance drones, to strengthen Armenia’s technological and economic infrastructure. The visit also spotlighted the proposed TRIPP (Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity) project, a 43-kilometer corridor passing through southern Armenia that would provide Azerbaijan direct access to Nakhichevan and a route to Turkey. Observers note that the project’s emphasis on trade, logistics and socio-economic benefits could subtly reinforce a narrative of a “prosperous transit future,” aligning with domestic messaging around economic development and stability. Following his visit to Yerevan, Vance traveled to Baku, where he and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev formalized a long-term strategic partnership aimed at expanding cooperation in diplomacy, economy, energy, technology and security. The agreement emphasizes regional connectivity, including the Middle Corridor and the TRIPP route, alongside trade, investment and energy cooperation covering oil, gas, electricity and critical minerals. The charter also promotes collaboration in technology and digital infrastructure, including artificial intelligence, space projects and talent development. Security coordination — including defense, counter-terrorism, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure protection and humanitarian demining — was presented as part of a broader U.S. commitment to regional stability. Vance’s visit to Armenia was accompanied by demonstrations outside the Presidential Palace on Baghramyan Avenue, where protesters called attention to the plight of political prisoners. They urged the United States to take direct action on behalf of those detained in Armenia for speaking out against the government, supporting the Armenian Apostolic Church or advocating for Artsakh. Similar concerns were raised regarding Armenian political prisoners held in Baku, whom activists described as facing politically-motivated or false charges. Organizers emphasized the need for accountability, transparency and respect for human rights in both countries, underscoring tensions between public expectations and political narratives promoted at the highest levels of diplomacy. Armenian opposition voices questioned the depth and implications of the high-profile visits. Arthur Khachatryan, a member of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) and an MP from the opposition “Armenia” Alliance, raised concerns during remarks to journalists in parliament on Feb. 10. He referenced a previous meeting in Davos between U.S. President Donald Trump and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, noting that no similar meeting had taken place with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. “We should not forget that in Davos, Trump met with Aliyev, but not with Pashinyan. That suggests a more substantive conversation was held with Aliyev,” Khachatryan said. “Therefore, I have reasons to believe that in Baku, Vice President Vance may discuss more serious issues with Aliyev. This is not surprising, as major issues are typically discussed with the leader of the winning side.” Khachatryan also challenged reports describing Vance’s remarks as promising “investment.” “Vance did not use the word ‘investment.’ Some of our compatriots, out of naivety, have been overly optimistic, thinking that $9 billion in investments are about to flow in,” he said. According to Khachatryan, Vance referred instead to trade, highlighting a potential of $5 billion in the energy sector and an additional $4 billion related to fuel purchases and servicing. He argued that televised translations inaccurately rendered the remarks as “investment.” Khachatryan acknowledged that the visit marked the highest-level U.S. trip to Armenia in the 35 years of diplomatic relations between the two countries, reflecting what he described as steady growth in bilateral ties. However, he argued that Armenia should have sought more tangible outcomes from the visit. “There can be no peace while occupying forces remain on your territory,” he said. “It would have been appropriate to request that the United States use its influence to secure the release of our prisoners, address the protection of Artsakh’s religious and historical-cultural heritage and uphold the right of return for the people of Artsakh. Any nationally minded government would have raised these issues.” When asked whether such matters might have been discussed behind closed doors, Khachatryan expressed skepticism. “I am confident they were not. You can raise many issues, but how you raise them and the language you use are equally important,” he said. He also dismissed reports that Vance’s visit signaled U.S. backing for Pashinyan ahead of elections, arguing that any change in government through elections would ultimately be recognized by the international community. “When power changes through elections, the United States and other countries will recognize the results, regardless of statements made beforehand,” he said. Armen Ashotyan, vice president of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), also criticized Pashinyan following a recent interview, describing some remarks as “startling confessions.” Ashotyan argued that Pashinyan’s statements linked the country’s long-term survival to a foreign state and its logistical projects, raising concerns about national sovereignty. He also accused the government of politicizing its campaign against the Armenian Apostolic Church. On security matters, Ashotyan noted that Pashinyan acknowledged the border delimitation process with Azerbaijan can be prolonged, suggesting Azerbaijani troops currently stationed on Armenian territory could remain for decades if not fully withdrawn. Ashotyan further criticized the reported parameters of the TRIPP project, citing Pashinyan’s indication that the corridor could span at least 500 meters — about 22 square kilometers of Armenian territory — and operate under foreign management. He questioned why special delimitation arrangements could be applied around TRIPP, including up to 1.5 kilometers on each side (including Nakhichevan), while similar mechanisms have not been implemented in areas where Azerbaijani forces remain positioned, including near Jermuk. He framed the issue as one of uneven sovereignty, arguing that infrastructure and transit arrangements are advancing more quickly than the resolution of territorial and security disputes. As Armenia heads toward elections in June, debates over transit corridors, foreign partnerships and the balance between diplomacy and territorial integrity are likely to intensify.