The recent meeting in Kars concerning the restoration and operation of the Kars-Gyumri railway line has generated significant discussion, albeit with limited in-depth analysis in the media. Armen Hovasapyan, a member of the HHK Council, has offered a critical perspective, asserting that this process is far more complex than a simple economic ‘unblocking.’ He posits that it represents a classic geopolitical strategy, where infrastructure is not the ultimate goal but a powerful tool for broader regional influence.
Beyond Economics: A Geopolitical Chessboard
Hovasapyan emphasizes that historical precedents demonstrate such projects rarely confine themselves to purely economic logic. Instead, they consistently function as instruments for expanding influence, asserting control over territories, and establishing political subservience. A prime example he cites is the Berlin-Baghdad railway project, which, despite being framed as an economic development initiative, became a pivotal point of competition among great powers, forming an infrastructural basis for penetration and control. This same logic, he argues, has already been observed in the South Caucasus with the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway, which served not only as an economic venture but also as a tool for political isolation, effectively marginalizing Armenia from regional communications.
The crucial point, according to Hovasapyan, is to recognize that Turkey is not merely acting as a conventional economic partner. Instead, it operates as a system-forming actor whose strategy is built on reshaping the regional architecture through the control of communication routes. The economic benefits often touted are largely propagandistic, serving only to legitimize a deeper, more strategic agenda. For Armenia, a country with a small market and limited production potential, becoming the primary beneficiary of such a line is unlikely. More probable, he suggests, is the reverse: Armenian territory transforming into a transit environment where the primary value is created and controlled by external actors.
The Azerbaijani Factor and Pan-Turkic Ambitions
Hovasapyan further contends that this process cannot be viewed in isolation from the Azerbaijani factor, as Turkish strategy in the South Caucasus has long operated with a synergistic logic. The restoration of transport links, he argues, fits into a broader project aimed at creating a unified communication space extending from Ankara to the Caspian Sea and beyond. In this context, Armenia is not seen as an independent entity but rather as a territory through which the integrity of this connection can be ensured.
When examined within the framework of Pan-Turkic and Pan-Turanian strategies, the picture becomes even clearer. The Organization of Turkic States, in recent years, has been evolving not only as a political platform but also as an integrated economic and infrastructural system. A key objective of this system is to ensure geographical continuity, which, Hovasapyan highlights, is impossible without some form of involvement of Armenian territory. The Kars-Gyumri line, he suggests, represents one of the softest, yet most effective, forms of this involvement. Here, military pressure is replaced by economic and logistical penetration, which, while appearing more ‘harmless’ externally, could have profound long-term consequences.
Cultural and Civilizational Shifts
The most critical layer, however, remains the civilizational one. Transport integration invariably brings with it cultural, informational, and ideological flows that, over time, begin to reshape the fundamental foundations of a society’s identity. The discourse of ‘peace’ and ‘unblocking,’ actively circulated around such projects, is often employed as a tool to smooth over the sharp edges of historical memory and normalize contradictions. This is a classic mechanism by which political problems are shifted into the cultural sphere and gradually neutralized. The result, Hovasapyan warns, is a situation where the state ceases to be the bearer of its past and interests, transforming instead into an environment serving external projects.
Hovasapyan’s analysis serves as a stark warning against a simplistic interpretation of the Kars-Gyumri railway project. While the promise of economic revitalization is alluring, the deeper geopolitical currents at play, particularly Turkey’s strategic ambitions and the synergistic relationship with Azerbaijan, suggest a far more complex and potentially transformative impact on Armenia’s sovereignty and cultural identity. The long-term implications, he concludes, demand a more nuanced and critical assessment than what has been presented thus far.
