Ex-Soviet states renounce territorial claims
DETAILS TO FOLLOW
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
19 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Highway to peace – or to the next war?
When Armenia and Azerbaijan signed a US-brokered deal in Washington this August – with Donald Trump taking credit as peacemaker-in-chief – it was quickly branded the 'Trump Route' to stability in the South Caucasus. On paper, it promises 'peace and prosperity.' In practice, it's a lot more complicated. The new transport corridor cutting through Armenia's Syunik Province isn't just an infrastructure project – it's a geopolitical choke point tying together the ambitions of Baku, Ankara, Washington, and Brussels. For Yerevan, it could turn out to be less the dawn of a new chapter and more the next round in a long fight to hold onto its land – only this time, under a very different set of rules. On August 8 in Washington DC, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev signed a joint declaration pledging to reopen transport and communication links between their countries. The deal – mediated and personally unveiled by Donald Trump – also commits both sides to ending long-standing hostilities and working toward normalising diplomatic relations. Alongside the political agreement, Armenia and Azerbaijan signed separate accords with the United States on trade, economic cooperation, innovation, and energy partnerships. The deal's headline feature is a transport corridor running through Armenia's Syunik Province, connecting mainland Azerbaijan with the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. Yerevan has even proposed an official name for it: the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. Under the terms, the corridor will be operated by a private American company on a 99-year lease, with an option to extend. 'This isn't just a peace treaty; it marks the establishment of international relations and the opening of embassies between the neighboring countries,' Azerbaijani National Assembly (Milli Majlis) member Aydin Mirzazade has said. 'A process of normalization between Azerbaijan and Armenia will follow. This agreement will put an end to the strained relations that have existed between Azerbaijan and Armenia since 1988, when the Armenian political elite laid a claim to historical Azerbaijani lands, culminating in the occupation of 20% of Azerbaijani territory. I believe there is a strong desire in both nations to establish normal, neighborly relations.' After the signing in Washington Pashinyan also floated the idea of a mutual territorial swap, which raised eyebrows back home. 'There are territories that, logically, belong to Armenia but are under Azerbaijan's control, and there are territories that, logically, belong to Azerbaijan but are under Armenia's control,' he said . He argued that both sides should continue demarcating the border and return any land that does not 'rightfully' belong to them. On the surface, both Armenia and Azerbaijan walk away with something to celebrate. Supporters of the deal argue it's a win-win that could boost trade, create jobs, and calm one of the region's most volatile flashpoints. Mirzazade calls it 'a highly profitable economic project' that could generate hundreds of thousands of jobs, open new markets, and reassure neighboring states that war isn't around the corner. 'Tense relations and the volatile situation in the South Caucasus have severely hampered trade freedom, investments, and so on. This tension has affected the ability of other nations to pursue their legitimate interests in the region. The opening of the Zangezur Corridor will allow for the free movement of goods and people from Asia to Europe and back,' he said to RT. For Azerbaijan, the payoff is obvious: a direct land link to its Nakhchivan exclave – something Baku has long sought. The corridor gives it unhindered access across southern Armenia and a clear logistical advantage in trade and transport. Türkiye, Azerbaijan's closest ally, also stands to gain. As Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan openly put it, the corridor would knit the Turkic world together, linking Central Asia to Europe through Turkish territory. In Ankara's view, it's not just a bilateral arrangement; it's a strategic bridge for pan-Turkic integration. Europe, too, gets something out of it – access to Central Asian energy resources routed through NATO territory. For Brussels, it's a safer alternative to Russian-controlled or Iranian-linked routes. 'Of course, Europe would prefer the presence of, say, the French rather than the Americans. That would feel more secure for them, considering the current tensions with Washington. But still, for Europe, this is far better than having no such corridor at all,' Armenian political analyst Karen Igitian told RT. For the United States, the corridor serves multiple strategic goals. First, it opens a secure route for moving Central Asian energy westward without passing through Russia or Iran. 'The second crucial aspect is the potential to supply arms to Central Asia in the event of escalating tensions or conflicts, which, as Washington believes, could involve Russia. In such cases, Americans would have the ability to deliver weapons and ammunition without any obstacles. Unblocking communication routes without establishing this corridor would raise doubts in the US about the reliability of such supplies,' Karen Igitian explained. And perhaps most importantly, it puts Washington in a position to exert lasting influence in a region where Russia has traditionally called the shots. That influence is exactly what worries Iran and Russia. Tehran has warned that the corridor could destabilize the regional balance, redraw borders, and undermine Armenia's sovereignty. An advisor to Iran's supreme leader went so far as to threaten that it would become 'the graveyard of Trump's mercenaries.' Moscow, while less blunt in its public statements, has every reason to see the US-brokered deal as an encroachment on its traditional sphere of influence – especially given that it was Russia, not Washington, that mediated the 2020 ceasefire. Armenia's position is the most complicated. It gains the promise – and only the promise – of peace, along with potential economic openings from restored transport links. Azerbaijan's expectations are set high by its own leadership. In December 2020, President Ilham Aliyev described Zangezur, Gegharkunik, and Yerevan as 'historical Azerbaijani lands,' and, at a party congress two years earlier, framed Yerevan as a city Baku ultimately aims to 'take back.' In his telling, 'Armenia's aggressive policies' since the late 1980s have displaced hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis. Those statements continue to echo over the current talks. Baku also wants Yerevan to change its basic law: Azerbaijan insists that Armenia revise its constitution to remove any claims to Azerbaijani territory. That demand, raised alongside the Washington signing, turns domestic Armenian politics into a live wire for the process. Armenian analyst Karen Igityan cautions that a paper peace may not hold. 'This agreement could move the sides closer to a formal peace,' he says, 'but it doesn't guarantee actual peace.' In his view, 'Azerbaijan considers the entire territory of Armenia to be Western Azerbaijan,' and Aliyev 'explicitly' names Yerevan and Etchmiadzin as Azerbaijani. Azerbaijan's military spending has again hit a record $5 billion, which he reads as a signal that 'Azerbaijan has no intention of establishing peaceful relations with Armenia… we see Azerbaijan preparing for another escalation.' On guarantees, Igityan is blunt: beyond Donald Trump's line – 'If you don't get along, call me and I'll straighten it out' – 'there are no clearly defined international guarantees.' That vagueness, he argues, mirrors the post-November 10, 2020 pattern, when 'the mechanisms for oversight weren't sufficiently outlined,' allowing Baku to 'launch military actions several times.' Even the corridor itself can become a flashpoint. With a private American company overseeing operations on a 99-year term, Armenia, Igityan says, 'loses control over part of its territory,' because 'it's no longer up to Armenia to decide what happens in that area; the signatures of the United States and Azerbaijan are already on the document.' All of this keeps the margin for error thin. As Igityan puts it, 'This propaganda doesn't stop,' and with constitutional edits, border demarcation, and corridor rules all in play, any stumble risks becoming the next crisis. The Zangezur corridor may be framed as a peace project, but its real weight is geopolitical. For Ankara, it's a strategic hinge between the Turkic states of Central Asia and Europe – a physical link that advances a decades-old vision of cultural and political integration. For Washington, it's a rare chance to plant a long-term presence in a region historically under Russian sway, with the added benefit of securing energy routes and potential military supply lines that bypass Moscow and Tehran entirely. These ambitions are precisely what make Moscow and Tehran uneasy. For Russia, the deal shifts the optics – and potentially the reality – of mediation in the South Caucasus. Azerbaijani lawmaker Mirzazade recalled that various mediators have played roles at different stages in the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict. 'On November 10, 2020, a ceasefire agreement was reached with Russian mediation, and Russia was also involved in the subsequent negotiations aimed at concluding a peace treaty,' he said. 'For Azerbaijan, it doesn't really matter who controls this road. What matters is that the 43-kilometer route from one part of Azerbaijan to another remains open so our citizens can move around freely. We referred to the example of Kaliningrad, where Russian citizens and vehicles pass through another country without customs checks. Azerbaijan demands the same arrangement, and this demand has been accepted.' For Iran, the corridor's alignment with NATO-linked infrastructure threatens to cut it off from the north and reinforce a chain of allied states stretching from Türkiye into Central Asia. In practice, the corridor is less about trucks and trains than about influence. Whoever controls its operation and security gains leverage over a swath of Eurasia's trade and transit – leverage that can be used to build alliances, pressure rivals, or recalibrate the balance of power in the region. This makes the Zangezur deal not just a test of Armenian–Azerbaijani reconciliation, but a live battleground for the strategic agendas of four competing capitals. The 'Trump Route' deal has been sold as a breakthrough – a handshake in Washington, a promise of open borders, and a road meant to carry prosperity from Asia to Europe. But in the South Caucasus, promises are fragile currency. The same corridor that is billed as a bridge could just as easily become a fault line, shaped less by the goodwill of its neighbors than by the strategic ambitions of powers far beyond Armenia and Azerbaijan. The agreement's survival will hinge on factors the signing ceremony couldn't fix: whether Baku reins in its maximalist rhetoric, whether Yerevan can navigate domestic backlash without derailing commitments, and whether outside actors treat the corridor as shared infrastructure rather than a geopolitical choke point. None of those conditions are guaranteed – and history suggests that when they fail, it's rarely on just one front. For now, the road through Syunik exists mostly on paper. Whether it becomes a path to peace or another route to confrontation will depend on the ability of its architects to enforce not only the letter of the deal, but the trust it was meant to create. In the South Caucasus, that may be the hardest route of all.
Russia Today
an hour ago
- Russia Today
White House discloses Trump's approach to Putin summit
US President Donald Trump believes that diplomacy is the best way to end the Ukraine conflict, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt has told Fox News ahead of the American leader's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. Washington has a wide range of 'tools' at its disposal that it can use if necessary but would still very much prefer to try out a diplomatic approach first, according to Leavitt. Washington and Moscow have both tempered expectations for the summit, signaling the meeting will likely end up being just the first in a string of top-level talks rather than yield an immediate breakthrough. Trump earlier described the summit with Putin as a 'feel-out meeting' that will help him determine whether the Ukraine conflict can be resolved. 'The president wants to exhaust all options to try to bring this war to a peaceful resolution,' Leavitt said Thursday. 'He has always said that diplomacy and negotiation is his primary way of hoping to end this war. That's what he will be looking to do tomorrow.' The American leader is reluctant to resort to more forceful measures in its dealings with Moscow, Leavitt said, adding that, although sanctions and 'many other measures' are on the table, that does not mean that Trump 'is willing' to use them. The spokeswoman also confirmed that the summit will feature a one-on-one meeting between Trump and Putin followed by a lunch with the respective delegations and a joint press conference of the two leaders. Such a schedule was earlier confirmed by the Kremlin. The Russian delegation will include Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Kremlin aide Yury Ushakov, Defense Minister Andrey Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, and Special Presidential Representative for Investment and Economic Cooperation with Foreign Countries Kirill Dmitriev, according to Ushakov himself. Washington is yet to officially announce who will be accompanying Trump to Alaska. The Russian delegation is expected to return home immediately after the negotiations conclude.
Russia Today
2 hours ago
- Russia Today
No Zelensky, no Brussels, no problem: Here's how Putin and Trump's Alaska power move will play out
On Friday, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump will meet in Alaska. This will be the first full-scale Russia-US summit since June 2021 in Geneva, and the first official visit by a Russian president to American soil since Dmitry Medvedev's trip in 2010 at the height of the 'reset.' It will also be the first time the leaders of Russia and the US have met in Alaska, the closest US state to Russia, separated only by the narrow Bering Strait, and once part of the Russian Empire. The symbolism is obvious: as far as possible from Ukraine and Western Europe, but as close as possible to Russia. And neither Zelensky nor the EU's top brass will be in the room. The message could not be clearer – Moscow and Washington will make the key decisions on Ukraine, then inform others later. As Trump has said, 'they hold all the cards.' The Alaska summit marks a sharp departure from the Biden years, when even the idea of such a meeting was unthinkable and Washington's priority was isolating Russia. Now, not only will Putin travel to Alaska, but Trump is already planning a return visit to Russia. Moderate optimism surrounds the meeting. Summits of this type are rarely held 'just to talk'; they usually cap a long process of behind-the-scenes negotiations. The idea for this one emerged after three hours of talks in Moscow on August 6 between Putin and Trump's special envoy, Steve Witkoff. Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov described Washington's offer as 'very acceptable.' That suggests Putin and Trump will arrive in Alaska with a preliminary deal – or at least a framework for a truce – already in place. Trump has good reason to want the summit to succeed. His effort to squeeze Moscow by pushing China and India to stop buying Russian oil has backfired badly. Far from isolating Russia, it triggered the worst US-India crisis in 25 years and drove New Delhi even closer to Moscow. It also encouraged a thaw between India and China, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi now set to attend the SCO summit in Tianjin. BRICS, which Trump has openly vowed to weaken, has only grown more cohesive. The Alaska summit is Trump's chance to escape the trap he built for himself – trying to pressure Moscow through Beijing and New Delhi – and to show results on Ukraine that he can sell as a diplomatic victory. For Moscow, a successful summit would be a powerful demonstration that talk of 'isolation' is obsolete – even in the West. It would cement Russia's standing with the 'global majority' and highlight Western Europe's diminished influence. The transatlantic split would widen, weakening Brussels' claim to be Russia's toughest opponent. Most importantly, Washington today has little real leverage over Russia, especially on Ukraine. If the summit yields a joint Russian–American vision for a truce or settlement, it will inevitably reflect Moscow's position more than Kiev's or Brussels'. And if the Western Europeans try to derail it, the US could pull the plug on all aid to Ukraine – including intelligence support – accelerating Kiev's defeat. Not everyone in Russia is cheering. Many prominent 'Z'-aligned war correspondents see the war as unfinished and oppose any truce. But they have been asked to stick to the official line. If the Alaska meeting produces a deal, they will be expected to back it – or at least use 'cooling' language for their audiences. The Kremlin is betting it can manage this dissent. Western Europe, for its part, will be watching from the sidelines. Its leaders are 'scrambling' for scraps of information via secondary channels. The optics will underline a humiliating reality: for the first time in almost a century, decisions about Europe's security will be made without the likes of Italy, France and Germany in the room. The location hints at other agenda items. Arctic economic cooperation, largely frozen since 2014, could be revived. Both sides stand to gain from joint development in the far north, and a deal here would be politically symbolic – proof that the two countries can work together despite the baggage of the last decade. Arms control will also be on the table. Moscow's recent decision to end its unilateral moratorium on deploying intermediate-range missiles was almost certainly timed to influence the talks. Strategic stability after the New START Treaty expires in February 2026 will be a central concern. If Alaska delivers, it could reshape the conflict in Ukraine and the broader Russia-US relationship. A joint settlement plan would marginalize Kiev and Brussels, shift the diplomatic center of gravity back to Moscow and Washington, and reopen channels for cooperation on global issues – from the Arctic to arms control. If it fails – if Trump bends to last-minute EU pressure – Moscow will continue fighting, confident that US involvement will fade. Either way, Russia's position is stronger than it was two years ago. What's different now is that the two powers with 'all the cards' are finally back at the same table – and Western Europe is on the outside looking in.
