A recent peace agreement brokered by Donald Trump aims to resolve longstanding conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan, signifying a significant advancement after decades of warfare. This deal introduces a transit corridor, termed the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity,” which will enable Azerbaijanis easier access to their western region known as Nakhchivan. According to Luke Coffey, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, the situation resembles the relationship between the U.S. and Alaska, where Armenia stands like Canada, obstructing direct passage to an important region within Azerbaijan.
Since the late 1980s, Armenia and Azerbaijan have been at odds, complicating travel and trade through Armenian territory. Although a previous 2020 agreement mediated by Russia aimed to establish a similar transit route, it never materialized, due to Russia’s lack of implementation and effectiveness as a power broker. Coffey points out that Azerbaijanis have faced prolonged detours to access Nakhchivan, exacerbating the economic and logistical challenges posed by the conflict, which continues to manifest in international relations today.
The discord intensified as Armenia grew disillusioned with Moscow, particularly when Russia failed to intervene during Azerbaijan’s military actions in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023. The new deal essentially shifts the dynamics, granting the U.S. exclusive rights to develop infrastructure along the transit route. This transition operates against the backdrop of Russia’s declining influence in the region, as President Vladimir Putin’s ambitions focus more on Ukraine while his prior dominion over former Soviet territories wanes.
Experts contend that if the agreement endures, it could illustrate a diminishing Russian grip on its so-called “near-abroad.” John Hardie from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies posits that Russia is losing its traditional role as a mediator, allowing the U.S. to step into the void and exert influence in a region once dominated by Moscow’s strategic interests. As a result, this could alter the geopolitical landscape, impacting Russia’s capacity to leverage the conflict for its own interests.
Although the prospects of the Armenia-Azerbaijan arrangement leading to advancements in the Ukraine conflict remain uncertain, it signals a rising U.S. role in the Caucasus — a development that is unlikely to please the Kremlin. The situation invites speculation regarding potential negotiations between the U.S. and Russia, considering the possibility of concessions for Moscow. Coffey underscores the transactional nature of U.S. foreign policy in such contexts, emphasizing the administration’s pursuit of the most favorable outcomes in international dealings.
Overall, the Trump-brokered agreement serves as a pivotal development in the protracted Armenia-Azerbaijan rivalry, redistributing power dynamics in favor of U.S. interests while challenging Russia’s historical hegemony in the region. The long-term implications of this shift, particularly its impact on ongoing conflicts like that in Ukraine, will warrant careful observation as international stakeholders navigate this new geopolitical landscape.
