Armenia’s parliament ratification of the US-Armenia framework agreement on the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) on 27 October, as opposition lawmakers questioned whether the project would deliver reciprocal benefits before Azerbaijan signs a final peace treaty. Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan defended the project’s economic potential, while Speaker Ruben Rubinyan denied calls to make its implementation conditional on the treaty’s signature.

Mirzoyan argued that TRIPP could connect Armenia’s northern and southern regions by railway, facilitate trade with Azerbaijan and provide access to third-country markets. As indicated, the project would depend on the interests of both countries and other states using regional transport routes. “The guarantee is that it is mutually beneficial for Armenia, Azerbaijan, and third countries,” he stated, adding that the route could not operate in Azerbaijan’s interests while denying Armenia reciprocal access.

Opposition leader Narek Karapetyan of the Strong Armenia faction warned that Azerbaijan could secure a connection to its Nakhchivan exclave without completing the wider regional unblocking process or signing the peace treaty. “It is possible that ten years from now, we will not have a peace treaty, but will have a road connecting Nakhchivan to Azerbaijan without the unblocking of any other Armenian regions,” he said. According to Karapetyan, linking implementation to the treaty would reduce the risk of Baku postponing further commitments.

Rubinyan that position, maintaining that TRIPP and the delimitation and demarcation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border should proceed independently of the treaty’s signature. The parliament speaker pointed to Azerbaijan’s demand that Armenia amend its Constitution before signing the treaty, a condition Yerevan rejects. “We disagree with this claim and say that we are ready to sign it now,” Rubinyan noted, insisting that practical steps towards peace should not be held back by the unresolved dispute.

The opposition also questioned whether Azerbaijan’s obligations were as clearly defined as Armenia’s. MP Kristine Vardanyan asked Mirzoyan to identify a document specifying Baku’s commitments in comparable detail. The minister acknowledged that technical arrangements for Armenian transit through Azerbaijani territory had not yet been agreed and would require direct negotiations between the two countries. Anna Grigoryan, head of the opposition Armenia Alliance faction, that her group would vote against ratification, referring to the fact that Azerbaijan’s interests were more clearly reflected in the agreement than Armenia’s. Grigoryan further challenged the absence of clear calculations of the project’s expected revenues and whether reciprocal border and customs procedures would apply to passengers and cargo.

Speaking alongside Dutch Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen in Baku on 26 October, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov that Armenia needed to recognise that peace served both societies. “Armenian society must accept and understand that peace is an important issue both for them and for Azerbaijani society,” he said, underscoring that Baku was monitoring political developments in Armenia and remained ready to finalise the treaty once constitutional amendments were made. A day before the parliamentary debate, Azerbaijani presidential aide Hikmet Hajiyev had also called on Armenia and Armenian society to apologise to Azerbaijanis who had been unable to return to their homeland for 30 years. Speaking at the Baku Culture and Media Dialogue Platform on 26 October, Hajiyev said the peace treaty “can either be signed or remain on paper”. Hajiyev also that Azerbaijan had no intention of seeking revenge but that further initiatives were needed to establish lasting peace.

Asked about Hajiyev’s remarks, Mirzoyan them as unhelpful to the peace process and warned against escalating public rhetoric. “You have now brought up an example that does not contribute. Of course, it does not contribute,” he told lawmakers, maintaining that a sharper Armenian response could prompt an even stronger reaction from Baku. “The wounds are very fresh, the conflict has only recently ended, there have been casualties and bloodshed on this side, and there have been casualties and bloodshed on that side,” he replied, stressing that both societies would benefit from moving towards peace and cooperation rather than renewed confrontation.

In a separate parliamentary debate on 27 October, lawmakers also considered ratifying the charter of the US-backed Board of Peace, which Armenia signed as a founding member on 22 January 2026. According to Mirzoyan, Armenia had made no financial contributions to the organisation, whose charter provides for voluntary contributions and a three-year membership term. Armenian foreign minister framed the Board as a potential platform for political dialogue with Washington and other participating countries. Strong Armenia leader Karapetyan its potential role in promoting regional peace and maintaining regular contacts with international power centres, prompting Mirzoyan to urge him to take a similar approach to TRIPP.

The two-hour parliamentary debate ended without a ratification vote. Although 27 lawmakers had registered to question Mirzoyan, only three were able to do so before time expired. Parliament was expected to return to the bill on 28 October.