As Armenia’s government and state-aligned outlets focus on official statements and procedural details of the U.S.-brokered peace accord with Azerbaijan, a cluster of Armenian voices — from political organizations to street-level commentators and diaspora advocates — have issued sharp rebukes of the deal in the past 24 hours.
The most forceful condemnation came from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) Eastern Region, which on August 10 called the agreements a “historic betrayal” that dismantles Armenia’s sovereignty and erases Artsakh from the international agenda. The ARF decried what it termed the “Trump Route” through Syunik — the proposed transit link connecting Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan — as a loss of sovereignty, criticized the absence of explicit provisions on Armenian prisoners of war, and labeled Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s signatures “illegitimate,” arguing the March 2025 17-point framework was never presented to or ratified by the Armenian public, according to a statement published by the Armenian Weekly.
Uncertainty in the Streets
On the streets of Yerevan, reactions captured by international media ranged from skepticism to outright rejection. “We are effectively losing control of our territory. It’s as if, in my apartment, I had to ask a stranger if I could go from one room to another,” said 69-year-old Anahit Eylasyan, in remarks reported by Yahoo News. Another resident, 68-year-old Shavarsh Hovhannisyan, told the Malay Mail the document looks “more of a surrender” than a peace agreement, accusing former U.S. President Donald Trump — who oversaw the White House signing — of prioritizing his image. Ruzanna Ghazaryan, quoted by regional outlets, warned the declaration is unlikely to deliver real peace and described the concessions as “entirely one-sided.”
Former Armenian Human Rights Defender Arman Tatoyan criticized the government’s handling of the process, accusing officials of withholding details of the Washington agreement, creating “information chaos,” shifting positions on key issues, and leaving space for Azerbaijani narratives to dominate the public discourse. He argued that the negotiations appear to be focused on “meeting Azerbaijan’s demands,” according to comments reported by EADaily on August 8.
Outside Armenia, diaspora organizations amplified the backlash. The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) characterized the deal as rewarding Azerbaijan’s past abuses and compromising Armenia’s sovereignty, reflecting broader diaspora unease with the transit and security provisions.
By contrast, major Armenian outlets such as Armenpress and CivilNet have largely emphasized official messaging and logistics surrounding the agreement in the last day, with limited space given to opposition voices or in-depth parliamentary debate. The muted domestic media landscape may reflect restricted access, tight information control, or a wait-and-see posture as precise terms are clarified.
Significant Public Skepticism
Internationally, Washington and other capitals have hailed the accord as a potential breakthrough after decades of conflict, following a high-profile signing at the White House on August 8, according to Reuters and RFE/RL. But regional sensitivities remain acute: Iran has publicly rejected any extraterritorial corridor through Armenia, underscoring the geopolitical stakes around transit routes through Syunik.
Taken together, the past 24 hours of Armenian commentary point to significant public skepticism. Critics see the agreement as one-sided, weakening sovereignty around transit arrangements, failing to address POWs and security guarantees, and cementing the loss of Artsakh from the diplomatic agenda — even as official channels project a more cautious, procedural tone. At the same time, the deal’s full contours come into focus.
Photo: Generated by Gemini AI