Armenia’s Nuclear Ambiguity: A Strategic Vacuum Exploited by Baku
The recent statements by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, suggesting the possibility of laying new power transmission lines to Armenia to ensure electricity supply, are not merely a proposition but a strategic move that fits squarely into the logic of the TRIPPA initiative. According to energy security expert Vahe Davtyan, this initiative is exclusively a wager against Armenia, exploiting Yerevan’s lack of a clear, consistent policy on ‘peaceful atom’ energy.
Azerbaijan’s Clear Motives, Armenia’s Unclear Path
Davtyan, in his analysis, points out that Azerbaijan’s interests are transparent: access to Nakhchivan, diversification of gas supplies, and broader regional influence. Turkey’s motives are equally clear: unimpeded connection to Azerbaijan’s transport network and an expanded presence in the Caspian Sea. Even global stakeholders, particularly the United States, have their interests plainly outlined in the project’s initial pages, including limiting the European Union’s independent access to Central Asia. The crucial question then becomes: what does Armenia gain from TRIPPA? The answer, according to Davtyan, is electricity from Azerbaijan, which he equates to a loss of energy sovereignty – a sovereignty Armenia still possesses, primarily thanks to its nuclear power plant.
Aliyev’s assertion that the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant (ANPP) is not under Armenian control is factually incorrect. Since 2013, following the departure of INTER RAO, the ANPP has been fully managed by the Armenian side. Moreover, the ANPP’s significance extends beyond being a mere power source. While thermal power plants contribute over 40% of Armenia’s electricity production compared to the ANPP’s approximately 30%, the nuclear plant’s broader importance lies in Armenia being the only country in the region developing nuclear energy. This fact, Davtyan notes, poses a challenge for Baku.
Debunking the ‘Outdated ANPP’ Narrative
The narrative that the ANPP is ‘outdated and a potential threat to the entire region’ has been a recurring, albeit ‘tasteless,’ refrain since 1994. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the leading international body in this field, has consistently given positive assessments of the ANPP’s operations and the ongoing modernization of its second power unit. An agreement with the IAEA has also been reached to extend the operational life of the power unit until 2036. Furthermore, with appropriate work, the unit has the technical potential to extend its service life by another ten years, until 2046. This, Davtyan suggests, is a realistic prospect if a proper energy policy and diplomacy are pursued.
Political Dimensions of Aliyev’s Attacks
Aliyev’s attacks on the Armenian nuclear power plant and his promises to supply electricity to Armenia via TRIP must be viewed primarily on a political level. Firstly, dismantling Armenia’s ‘peaceful atom’ would deprive the country not only of a stable source of electricity but also of access to nuclear technologies that have long transcended the boundaries of clean energy. Secondly, emboldened by successes in the Karabakh conflict, Aliyev perceives the ANPP as one of the most critical pillars of Armenia’s national security – a pillar that, from his perspective, needs to be dismantled. Thirdly, the construction of a nuclear power plant in Azerbaijan is only a matter of time. Baku has already officially announced the possibility of including nuclear energy in the country’s energy balance. For Azerbaijan, this is gradually becoming a necessity, given its ambitions to export ‘green’ electricity to Europe via the Black Sea cable. It should be noted that, according to EU classification, nuclear energy is categorized as low-carbon, transitional energy.
Yerevan’s Inconsistent Strategy
In short, Aliyev’s motives are clear. But what is Yerevan doing? Davtyan finds the lack of an adequate response surprising. A simple, clear statement such as, ‘Armenia is a sovereign state and determines the structure of its energy balance,’ would be appropriate. However, there is a much more serious issue at play. The situation around the ANPP in recent years contributes to Baku’s rhetoric. While Armenia’s strategic energy development program until 2040 includes a provision for ‘peaceful atom,’ the practical situation in the sector is approaching a dead end, not operationally, but strategically.
Official Yerevan announces its decision to build a small modular reactor and signs a corresponding agreement with Washington. It even misrepresents US Vice President J.D. Vance’s statement about anticipating $9 billion in American investments in Armenia’s nuclear energy sector. However, just days after Vance’s official visit, Pashinyan announces the possibility of extending the ANPP’s life until 2046. If this were the basis of a consistent policy, the statement itself would be strategically correct. But it is not. Then, there are new announcements about building a modular reactor, again seeking partners from France to South Korea. What is the result? A clear observation of strategic uncertainty.
Meanwhile, if the operational life of the existing power unit is extended until 2036, then at least this is something concrete. However, if the operational life of the existing power unit is extended until 2036, then today, at a minimum, a specific technology should have been chosen, key partners identified, and a preliminary feasibility study developed, as the entire process from design to licensing, signing contracts, construction, and commissioning can take 7-10 years. Another important factor is that the liberalization of the electricity market allows private traders with state licenses to import electricity and sell it on the domestic market. All of this together suggests one thing: Armenia lacks a clear strategic policy in the field of ‘peaceful atom.’ And this is precisely what gives Baku ample opportunity to use rhetoric aimed at expanding energy supply. Therefore, the question is not just who will build the next power transmission line. The question is deeper: who will determine the future structure of Armenia’s energy system? Yerevan?
