Well, that’s a start…

The treaty may not be all it’s cracked up to be… at least as viewed from Armenia.
Got this sense from reading comments in twitter calling the Armenian President a sell out, when first announced and I finally took this deeper dive. Grok finally gets to rosier side of the issue after dealing with my question first.

Grok, is there any sense of betrayal in Armenia over the recent peace treaty with Azerbaijan?

Yes, there is a significant sense of betrayal among some Armenians regarding the U.S.-brokered peace agreement signed with Azerbaijan on August 8, 2025. This sentiment stems from several factors, as evidenced by reactions from residents, politicians, and analysts, particularly in Yerevan and among the Armenian diaspora. Below is a detailed analysis of the sources of this perceived betrayal, drawing on available information.
Sources of Perceived Betrayal in Armenia

Concessions and Lack of ReciprocityMany Armenians feel the agreement represents one-sided concessions, particularly to Azerbaijan, without addressing critical Armenian concerns. For instance, residents like Ruzanna Ghazaryan in Yerevan expressed that the declaration is “unlikely to bring real peace” and described the concessions as “entirely one-sided,” offering Armenia “nothing” in return for significant compromises, such as the loss of control over parts of its territory.The agreement does not address the return of Armenian prisoners, the status of occupied lands, or accountability for alleged human rights violations, including the ethnic cleansing of over 100,000 Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023. Critics, such as Anahit Eylasyan, argue that the treaty is akin to a “surrender document” rather than a fair peace deal, fueling perceptions of betrayal by the Armenian government.The Zangezur CorridorA major point of contention is the establishment of the Zangezur Corridor, named the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity,” which connects mainland Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave through Armenian territory. Some Armenians, like Anahit Eylasyan, view this as a loss of sovereignty, comparing it to needing permission from a “stranger” to move within one’s own home. The corridor’s development under U.S. control for up to 99 years is seen as prioritizing foreign interests over Armenia’s, deepening feelings of betrayal.The corridor issue was a sticking point in earlier negotiations, with Azerbaijan initially demanding extraterritorial rights, which Armenia rejected. While the final agreement respects Armenia’s sovereignty, the perception persists that it compromises national control, contributing to distrust.Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s RolePrime Minister Nikol Pashinyan faces significant domestic criticism for his concessions, particularly his recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan and his willingness to amend Armenia’s constitution to remove references to it. Critics like Anahit Eylasyan accuse Pashinyan of “making decisions for everyone” and offering “endless concessions” without securing reciprocal benefits.The Armenian Weekly, a diaspora publication, has accused Pashinyan of depriving Armenians of their “right to dream of a historic Armenia,” framing his policies as a betrayal of national identity and historical grievances, including the 1915 Armenian Genocide. This sentiment is echoed in posts on X, with users like @RT_com citing Yerevan resident Ruzanna Ghazaryan’s “fury” at Pashinyan’s “sellout.”Pashinyan’s push for a “Real Armenia” focused on peace and Western integration is seen by some as abandoning traditional alliances with Russia and ignoring the plight of displaced Armenians, further fueling domestic and diaspora opposition.Neglect of Displacement and JusticeThe treaty’s failure to address the displacement of over 100,000 ethnic Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 is a significant source of grievance. Analyst Manoug Antaby notes that the agreement “silences” the displacement crisis, offering no mechanisms for transitional justice, compensation, or accountability for alleged Azerbaijani human rights violations. This omission is seen as normalizing Azerbaijan’s actions and placing the burden of the refugee crisis solely on Armenia, which struggles to support the influx (3.3% of its population).The lack of provisions for the return of displaced Armenians or recognition of their rights is perceived as a betrayal by both the Armenian government and the international community, particularly the U.S., which brokered the deal.Geopolitical Shifts and Loss of Russian SupportThe agreement marks a shift away from Russia’s traditional role as a mediator and security guarantor in the South Caucasus, which has disappointed some Armenians who hoped for continued Russian support. Residents like Shavarsh Hovhannisyan criticize Pashinyan for “turning his back” on Russia and Iran, viewing the U.S.-led deal as aligning Armenia with Western interests at the expense of traditional allies.Russia’s diminished influence, due to its focus on Ukraine and failure to protect Armenian interests in 2023, has left Armenia feeling abandoned by its former ally, compounding the sense of betrayal when the U.S. stepped in as the primary mediator.Skepticism About Azerbaijan’s CommitmentMany Armenians distrust Azerbaijan’s willingness to honor the agreement, given its history of ceasefire violations and aggressive rhetoric. Maro Huneyan, a 31-year-old aspiring diplomat, noted that the deal is “acceptable” only if Azerbaijan respects it, but expressed doubt about Baku’s intentions. This skepticism is rooted in Azerbaijan’s 2020 and 2023 military victories, which some see as emboldening its demands without offering Armenia tangible benefits.The perception that Azerbaijan faces less pressure to compromise, due to its military and economic strength, reinforces feelings of unfairness and betrayal among Armenians who believe their government conceded too much.Counterperspectives: Hope and Pragmatism
While betrayal is a prominent sentiment, some Armenians express cautious hope or pragmatism:

Economic Benefits: Entrepreneur Hrach Ghasumyan sees potential economic gains from the Zangezur Corridor, such as gas and oil pipelines and railway routes, which could integrate Armenia into regional trade networks previously dominated by Georgia.Necessity of Peace: Asatur Srapyan, an 81-year-old retiree, acknowledges Armenia’s weak position—lacking a strong army or allies compared to Azerbaijan—and views the agreement as a necessary step toward peace, despite its shortcomings.Regional Stability: Analyst Olesya Vartanyan suggests the deal brings “greater stability” in the short term, though she cautions that long-term success depends on sustained U.S. engagement.Broader Context

Historical Grievances: The sense of betrayal is amplified by the historical context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, including the 1988–1994 war, the 2020 war, and the 2023 ethnic cleansing, which displaced nearly all of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian population. The treaty’s failure to address these grievances, particularly the lack of justice for displaced Armenians, deepens distrust.Domestic Political Pressure: With parliamentary elections looming in 2026, Pashinyan faces significant opposition from those who view his concessions as capitulation. The Armenian diaspora, particularly vocal in publications like the Armenian Weekly, sees the treaty as undermining historical claims to Nagorno-Karabakh and Artsakh’s cultural heritage.Geopolitical Dynamics: The U.S.-brokered deal, while a diplomatic milestone, is seen by some as prioritizing American interests (e.g., the Trump Route and countering Russian influence) over Armenian needs, further fueling perceptions of betrayal.Conclusion
The sense of betrayal in Armenia over the August 8, 2025, peace treaty with Azerbaijan is significant, particularly among those who view it as a one-sided surrender that neglects the displacement crisis, compromises sovereignty via the Zangezur Corridor, and reflects excessive concessions by Pashinyan. Critics argue the deal fails to address justice for Nagorno-Karabakh’s displaced Armenians and prioritizes foreign interests, while distrust in Azerbaijan’s commitment persists. However, some Armenians see it as a pragmatic step toward stability, given Armenia’s limited leverage. The deep division in public sentiment underscores the fragility of the peace process and the challenge of achieving reconciliation after decades of conflict.
Sources:

The Straits Times:ABC News:CBC News:The Geopolitics:DW:Armenian Weekly:Post on X by @RT_com: