The recent meeting in Washington between Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, along with the official announcement of the TRIPP initiative's implementation framework, marks the beginning of a new phase in the South Caucasus peace process.
While previous stages were largely dominated by political declarations and confidence-building efforts, the current phase emphasizes institutionalization, legal mechanisms, and the construction of economic interdependence as the foundation of long-term stability, The Caspian Post reports, citing Think Tank Platforms.
Most notably, the United States has assumed the role of a structural architect of the peace agenda rather than merely an external facilitator. TRIPP emerges as a multi-layered mechanism designed to anchor regional security architecture in geoeconomic connectivity.
The joint statements framing TRIPP as a tool for promoting sustainable peace, reopening regional communications, and strengthening the Trans-Caspian trade corridor reflect broader geopolitical ambitions. For Washington, TRIPP represents a strategic investment in redesigning Eurasia’s connectivity architecture. Intensifying geopolitical fragmentation, expanding sanctions regimes, trade wars, and the politicization of transport corridors have compelled the United States to pursue diversified and resilient logistics networks capable of mitigating systemic risk.
In this context, TRIPP constitutes the South Caucasus segment of a broader U.S. strategy aimed at building alternative transit routes across Eurasia. The declining reliability of northern routes via Russia due to sanctions and security constraints, the geopolitical uncertainty of transit through Iran, and the growing strategic leverage embedded in China-centric corridors have collectively pushed Washington toward what may be described as the “geopolitical neutralization” of trade routes. TRIPP seeks to consolidate the Central Asia-Caspian-South Caucasus-Europe axis as a functional and institutionally integrated corridor.
Beyond its material dimension, TRIPP also carries a strong normative and ideational component. Rather than stabilizing the region through military balancing or coercive security arrangements, the United States is advancing a model of peace anchored in economic interdependence. Expanding trade flows, opening communications, and strengthening institutional cooperation constrain actors within rational cost-benefit frameworks, thereby increasing the political cost of conflict and incentivizing cooperative behavior.
President Ilham Aliyev’s recent media statements - notably that “the Zangezur corridor will definitely open” and that “for Azerbaijan the essential issue is that the road must be unimpeded” - reaffirm the strategic continuity of Azerbaijan’s position at the highest political level. These statements function as strategic signaling toward both regional and global actors. The emphasis is not merely symbolic but functional: the objective is the establishment of a secure, uninterrupted, and predictable transport connection in legal and physical terms. The adoption of the TRIPP implementation framework at this stage confirms the sequential advancement of the Zangezur track and translates political intent into institutional mechanisms that clarify responsibilities and operational pathways.
The conceptual convergence between TRIPP and the Zangezur corridor also reflects a new phase in Azerbaijan’s regional leadership model. For years, Baku has framed the reopening of communications as the core institutional pillar of sustainable regional security. Through TRIPP, this narrative gains international legitimacy under U.S. sponsorship, elevating it from a regional proposal to a multilateral strategic platform.
The statement by Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ayxan Hajizada regarding the TRIPP implementation framework represents a clear signal that the initiative has entered its operational phase. On one hand, it confirms U.S. adherence to the commitments undertaken at the August 8 Washington summit; on the other, it institutionalizes Armenia’s implementation responsibility. The political discourse is thus shifting from declaratory diplomacy toward measurable execution.
Hajizada’s emphasis that “ensuring an unimpeded connection between mainland Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic is one of our core priorities” demonstrates that TRIPP effectively integrates the Zangezur corridor into a broader international framework. This alignment anchors Azerbaijan’s connectivity agenda within a legally and politically structured multilateral environment.
Armenia’s participation in TRIPP also reflects an ongoing recalibration of its post-conflict foreign policy identity. Traditionally, Armenia positioned itself as a security-dependent actor relying on external guarantees and defensive posturing. Engagement in transit cooperation indicates a gradual transition from a conflict-centric identity toward an integration-oriented strategic posture.
From a conceptual perspective, TRIPP closely mirrors Azerbaijan’s post-conflict peace doctrine. Baku has consistently framed peace not as a frozen political compromise but as a function of real economic interdependence, operational connectivity, and mutual benefit. The opening of transport routes and the deepening of logistical integration constitute the institutional backbone of this vision. TRIPP internationalizes and legitimizes this approach, elevating it to a multilateral strategic mechanism.
The centrality of a stable link between mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan recalibrates Azerbaijan’s geoeconomic position. By strengthening east-west and north-south connectivity across the Caspian basin toward European and Mediterranean markets, Azerbaijan increases its transit capital and expands its normative influence over regional economic governance.
Perhaps the most consequential development is Armenia’s formal institutional participation in this framework. Acceptance of transit cooperation reflects a shift from a conflict logic toward an integration logic - a transformation that implicitly validates Azerbaijan’s thesis that sustainable peace is unattainable without regional economic integration.
Nevertheless, normative agreements alone do not guarantee successful implementation. International infrastructure projects frequently encounter gaps between legal commitments and political behavior, particularly in post-conflict environments characterized by unresolved security dilemmas and societal mistrust.
One of the most sensitive risk factors lies in Armenia’s domestic political landscape. Post-war trauma, identity insecurity, and lingering revisionist narratives may transform TRIPP into a subject of populist mobilization. Nationalist groups could frame the initiative through sovereignty and historical grievance lenses, generating political resistance that slows or distorts implementation.
Regional power dynamics also constitute a critical risk variable. Russia and Iran may perceive TRIPP as an alternative geoeconomic and strategic architecture encroaching upon their traditional spheres of influence. Moscow’s long-standing leverage over security and transit networks in the South Caucasus faces gradual erosion, while Tehran remains sensitive to shifts affecting north-south and east-west transit equilibria.
These dynamics suggest that TRIPP must be managed as a multi-layered security governance platform rather than merely an infrastructure project. Legal frameworks must be reinforced by operational enforcement mechanisms, risk-mitigation instruments, and sustained diplomatic balancing among regional stakeholders.
Absent effective strategic governance, TRIPP risks remaining a symbolic diplomatic initiative rather than delivering its anticipated transformative impact. Its ultimate success will depend on the quality of institutional management, political discipline, and adaptive coordination among stakeholders.
If implemented as envisioned, however, TRIPP could enable the South Caucasus to evolve from a historically volatile geopolitical fault line into a platform of geoeconomic stability - a structural shift with long-term implications for Eurasian connectivity and regional order.
