Analysis: Shadows and Sunlight: Armenia and Türkiye Seek Common Ground

Deepening Armenia–Türkiye Normalisation

Pashinyan's official visit to Türkiye on June 20, 2025, marks a strategic shift from symbolic reconciliation to strategic rapprochement. Normalisation, for Yerevan, is not an end in itself but a transformative initiative to put an end to Armenia's geopolitical isolation, to diversify its transit routes, to decrease its reliance on Russia and to get access to Turkish ports, measures that reorient Armenia economically and logistically toward the West. Türkiye, on its part, is seizing the moment to strengthen its role as a regional intermediary. Consequently, by promoting normalisation, Ankara solidifies its impact in the South Caucasus and sends a positive signal to Western partners: the EU and U.S., in particular, about its evolving role in the region's stabilisation.

This rapprochement remains conditional, however. President Erdoğan has expressed that meaningful advancement relies on Armenia progressing a peace accord with Azerbaijan, alongside movement toward opening the sealed border. Thus, while the Armenian prime minister's visit signifies political will, its realisation is constrained by the incomplete Yerevan–Baku peace process. The incomplete peace process puts the timing and substance of practical measures such as the reopening of the border or the project of restoration of the rail link between Armenia and Azerbaijan, "Zangezur Corridor," which is occasionally also called the Araxes Rail Link, in a state of strategic interdependence.

Türkiye's Dual Role and Caucasus Power Balance

Erdoğan's public endorsement of Armenia-Azerbaijan reconciliation talks during Pashinyan's working visit is a strategic shift by Ankara. Türkiye, by promoting reconciliation openly, while maintaining good relations with Baku, positions itself not just as a patron of pan-Turkic brotherhood but as a regional peacemaker with diplomatic capital. This dual-track diplomacy, therefore, allows Ankara to position itself at the centre of any South Caucasus settlement architecture: pursuing regional integration while safeguarding its Azerbaijani ally's interests.

Simultaneously, public reconciliation by Armenia with Türkiye is the culmination of a series of policy swings: suspension of Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) commitments, increased contacts with the U.S. and the EU, and increased independence at the borders. These moves constitute a deliberate geographic and strategic distancing from Moscow. Increased leadership by Türkiye leaves a power vacuum left behind by a withdrawing Russia, making the Caucasus a battleground for influence.

Moscow, faced with Ankara's belligerence, appears to be shifting into a rhetoric of tactical readjustment, speaking rather than bludgeoning. Consequently, Russia now enjoys interlocutor equality with Türkiye by way of the 3+3 regional meetings - a summit usually involves heads of state. Türkiye's increasing position in Armenian-Azerbaijani normalisation stabilises the regional balance of power, so it makes Ankara able to shape outcomes while pushing Moscow toward compromise and cooperation.

Azerbaijani–Armenian Peace Dynamics and Corridor Politics

Prime Minister Pashinyan's trip to Türkiye on June 20 follows hard on the heels of President Aliyev's recent trip to Ankara, generating a choreographed diplomatic rhythm underscoring Türkiye's position as a marshalling power behind two parallel peace tracks. This suggests Ankara's apparent willingness to act as a mediator in ushering in a comprehensive peace architecture bridging Yerevan and Baku directly.

At the heart of these discussions is the highly contested Zangezur Corridor, a proposed land link through Armenia to Azerbaijan's Nakhchivan exclave, seen by Türkiye and Azerbaijan as a foundation of regional connectivity, and by Armenia as a potential infringement on its sovereignty. Although Pashinyan studiously refrained from any formal concession on corridor semantics during his trip, he signalled instead pragmatic readiness to talk under constitutional guarantees. This guarded approach is a calibrated attempt to pacify domestic constituencies that Yerevan is not bartering away territorial integrity in seeking a conversation. Armenia's "Crossroads of Peace" proposal, referred to in regional forums, envisages multimodal connectivity under Armenian sovereign control, and is an option that preserves national agency within the broader regional agenda.

Moving forward, this corridor rationale will become a litmus test for Pashinyan's leadership. Consequently, it requires advancing Russian-brokered ceasefire arrangements without overstepping constitutional boundaries, while balancing Turkish-Azerbaijani economic incentives with domestic political stability. Ultimately, the success or failure of corridor pacts will hinge on whether Armenia can leverage Türkiye's brokerage status in gaining long-term regional integration, or whether playing its hand overcautiously contributes to further domestic polarisation and peace efforts.

Forecasting Shifts in Alliance-Building

Pashinyan's working visit to Türkiye is a turning-point strategic step: Armenia accelerates the westward pivot, supplementing the January 2025 U.S.–Armenia Strategic Partnership Charter and EU membership efforts. Yerevan, by tackling Ankara directly, supports a multi-vector foreign policy. Moreover, Armenia does not merely attempt to discover allies, but constructs bridging alliances, strengthening its diplomatic weight and security evaluation.

Türkiye's equidistant stance, standing with Azerbaijan and at the same time leaving the door open for Armenia, places Ankara in a position of regional interlocutor rather than partisan political actor politics. This fine balancing act underlines the building of a South Caucasus peace architecture under which Türkiye exercises leveraged influence through both capitals.

At the same time, Yerevan's shift west and away from Russia reflects increasing disenfranchisement with Moscow as a security provider. The Kremlin's failure to act during the 2020 and 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh escalations has dispelled illusions of CSTO reliability. This shortfall pressures Armenia to hasten its shift, otherwise, its own security and democratic gains are exchanged for the lack of credible assistance.

The Western role, in the form of visa liberalisation, EU infrastructure investment and U.S. strategic engagement, will determine whether political alignment in Armenia holds or recedes under pressure. Failure by the EU and U.S. after the visit will expose Yerevan to domestic backlash, reforms stuck in the mud and a retreat into isolation.

Finally, Türkiye's entry provides Armenia's western integration a nudge and diplomatic cover while silently reshaping Moscow's strategy from control to facilitation. As Türkiye repositions itself within the region, Russia is compelled to move away from bully patronage toward an orientation in line with European-U.S. models. However, the next steps by Armenia will determine whether such a multilateral pivot translates into a long-term geopolitical realignment for the South Caucasus.

Source: Yunis Gurbanov holds a BA in Art Management and an MA in International Relations from the Azerbaijan State University; an MA in Governance and Political Studies from the Friedrich Schiller University Jena; an LLM in European Law from the Julius Maximilian University Würzburg; a Master's in Public Administration from the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University, New York; and a PhD in Political Science from the University of Cologne, Germany. 

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners.

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Borrell tells the European Parliament that the situation in Afghanistan was critical, but the EU will remain engaged

Borrell tells the European Parliament that the situation in Afghanistan was critical, but the EU will remain engaged

Borrell underlined that the European Union will make every effort to support the peace process and to remain a committed partner to the Afghan people. "Of course, we will have to take into account the evolving situation, but disengagement is not an option.  We are clear on that: there is no alternative to a negotiated political settlement, through inclusive peace talks.
Editor's choice
News
G7 foreign ministers issue wide ranging statement after their meeting in Canada

G7 foreign ministers issue wide ranging statement after their meeting in Canada

The Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, met under Canada’s G7 Presidency, in Niagara, on November 11-12, 2025. The Foreign Ministers of Brazil, India, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Ukraine, also joined the meeting for discussions on maritime security and prosperity, critical minerals, economic resilience and energy security. At the end of their meeting the G7 foreign ministers said: We reaffirmed our unwavering support for Ukraine in defending its territorial integrity and right to exist, and its freedom, sovereignty, and independence. We reiterated that an immediate ceasefire is urgently needed. We agreed that the current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. We are increasing the economic costs to Russia, and exploring measures against countries and entities that are helping finance Russia’s war efforts. We condemned the provision to Russia of military assistance by DPRK and Iran, and the provision of weapons and dual-use components by China, a decisive enabler of Russia’s war. We acknowledged the ongoing discussions on a wide range of financing options, including further leveraging immobilised Russian Sovereign Assets in our jurisdictions in a coordinated way to support Ukraine. We strongly condemned Russia’s recent direct attacks on energy infrastructure and reaffirmed our support for Ukraine’s energy security. We reiterated our strong support for President Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict. We welcomed the ceasefire and the release of hostages. We stressed the urgency of returning the remains of deceased hostages. We also welcomed the increased flows of aid, but expressed concern about restrictions that remain in place. We called on all parties to allow for humanitarian assistance without interference at scale, through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions and INGOs, as stipulated in President Trump’s plan. It is vital that all parties continue to engage constructively on the next steps outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, in pursuit of a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples that advances comprehensive Middle East peace and stability. We will also continue to maintain attention on the situation in the West Bank. (click headline to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
News
G7 foreign ministers issue wide ranging statement after their meeting in Canada

G7 foreign ministers issue wide ranging statement after their meeting in Canada

The Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, met under Canada’s G7 Presidency, in Niagara, on November 11-12, 2025. The Foreign Ministers of Brazil, India, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, South Africa, and Ukraine, also joined the meeting for discussions on maritime security and prosperity, critical minerals, economic resilience and energy security. At the end of their meeting the G7 foreign ministers said: We reaffirmed our unwavering support for Ukraine in defending its territorial integrity and right to exist, and its freedom, sovereignty, and independence. We reiterated that an immediate ceasefire is urgently needed. We agreed that the current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations. We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force. We are increasing the economic costs to Russia, and exploring measures against countries and entities that are helping finance Russia’s war efforts. We condemned the provision to Russia of military assistance by DPRK and Iran, and the provision of weapons and dual-use components by China, a decisive enabler of Russia’s war. We acknowledged the ongoing discussions on a wide range of financing options, including further leveraging immobilised Russian Sovereign Assets in our jurisdictions in a coordinated way to support Ukraine. We strongly condemned Russia’s recent direct attacks on energy infrastructure and reaffirmed our support for Ukraine’s energy security. We reiterated our strong support for President Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict. We welcomed the ceasefire and the release of hostages. We stressed the urgency of returning the remains of deceased hostages. We also welcomed the increased flows of aid, but expressed concern about restrictions that remain in place. We called on all parties to allow for humanitarian assistance without interference at scale, through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions and INGOs, as stipulated in President Trump’s plan. It is vital that all parties continue to engage constructively on the next steps outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, in pursuit of a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence for the Israeli and Palestinian peoples that advances comprehensive Middle East peace and stability. We will also continue to maintain attention on the situation in the West Bank. (click headline to read more)