ARF Bureua Member Lilit Galstyan Warns TRIPP Agreement Poses Serious Risks to Armenia’s Sovereignty
27 October 2026
During a debate in Armenia’s National Assembly on the ratification of the TRIPP project agreement, Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) Bureau member and opposition MP Lilit Galstyan raised serious concerns about the agreement’s implications for Armenia’s sovereignty, national security, and long-term strategic interests.
Galstyan warned against treating TRIPP solely as an economic or transportation initiative, arguing that its geopolitical implications must be considered alongside Azerbaijan’s continued occupation of Armenian territories, the detention of Armenian prisoners in Baku, and ongoing demands against Armenia.
She also questioned the agreement’s 49-year development provisions, the absence of clearly defined economic benefits for Armenia, and what she described as insufficient legal and constitutional safeguards to guarantee Armenian sovereignty and effective control over the proposed infrastructure.
Below are Galstyan’s full remarks delivered during the National Assembly debate:
Dear compatriots,
It is simplistic and dangerous to approach TRIPP as merely a transportation project and to build optimism around the economic benefits of transit or the prospect of future prosperity.
TRIPP is, first and foremost, a geopolitical project, and the fundamental question is how Armenia protects its interests, sovereignty, and future.
No matter how much we attempt to avoid the security dimension, I find it unacceptable to separate TRIPP from a comprehensive framework for genuine peace, particularly when Armenian territories remain under occupation, Armenian prisoners continue to be held in Baku, and Azerbaijan imposes new demands on Armenia almost daily.
1. Transit does not automatically translate into economic benefit.
At least at this stage, no calculations have been presented regarding Armenia’s expected economic gains or the principle of reciprocity.
Beyond the economic considerations, the benefits for Azerbaijan and the Turkic world are enormous and evident. Nakhijevan would gain an unhindered connection to Azerbaijan, a development of historic strategic and geopolitical significance.
Meanwhile, the agreement contains no comparable mechanism defining the nature, scope, or enforceability of the “mutual benefits” promised to Armenia.
2. Armenia is granting development rights, as Pashinyan himself has acknowledged.
Yet a fundamental question remains unanswered: What specific territories will this development encompass?
Exclusive land-use and development rights are being granted for 49 years without clearly identifying the territories concerned.
3. We are being asked to vote on a document that, among its many shortcomings, uses language of assurances and aspirations rather than the binding legal terminology typically found in international agreements.
It relies on a “highly likely” approach.
It is evident that the legal ambiguities contained in the agreement pose serious risks to Armenia’s sovereignty and its ability to exercise effective control.
The Constitutional Court’s favorable opinion fails to address several important legal and constitutional questions.
Sovereignty is not measured by how many times it is reaffirmed on paper, but by the guaranteed existence of mechanisms ensuring effective control over one’s own territory.
The agreement provides for legislative exceptions whose content will be determined through commercial and contractual documents, including provisions concerning the acquisition of privately owned land and other related rights.
You are being asked to vote in favor of and ratify future legislative exceptions without knowing their content, and even before the charter and shareholders’ agreement have been signed or made public.
This raises a fundamental question: If these exceptions concern border protection, customs control, or certain aspects of law enforcement, will Armenia be able to exercise its sovereign authority fully?
In essence, the agreement fails to establish a clear distinction between the powers of the private operator and the functions of the state. Nor does it provide guarantees that Armenia will retain full sovereignty over the relevant territory and infrastructure.
4. The agreement contains no mechanisms for reversibility or dispute resolution.
It establishes a 49-year arrangement without guaranteeing future governments any mechanism for reviewing its terms should Armenia’s strategic priorities change.
5. If the TRIPP project fails to guarantee effective state control, clearly defined economic benefits, constitutional safeguards, and the ability to revise its terms, it cannot simply be regarded as an opportunity for development.
Without these guarantees, the project could become a strategic threat whose consequences Armenia would be forced to bear for decades.
Naturally, Armenia needs new transportation routes and economic opportunities, but not at the expense of restricting its sovereignty or its freedom to make independent decisions.
I believe our concerns are justified: TRIPP appears to be more of a political arrangement than an agreement providing sustainable legal guarantees.
