Conflict analyst Artur Martirosyan questions the widespread perception that TRIPP is an exclusively American project. According to him, the issue is not only the origin of the initiative, but also the fact that today no one can say with confidence how long the current political logic in the United States will remain in place.
Martirosyan notes that significant political changes may occur in the U.S. in the near future, which could affect not only foreign policy priorities but also the fate of initiatives already in motion. He points out that it remains unclear what will happen to TRIPP in the event of a change in administration or political course — and whether a new government would continue this line or simply abandon it.
The logic of American strategy
Martirosyan emphasizes that understanding American political thinking requires focusing not on statements, but on strategic documents. As an example, he cites a recently published Pentagon strategic document which, he says, caused serious concern in European circles.
The document clearly defines an American priority: the American continent is viewed as an exclusive U.S. sphere of influence, where the involvement of other powers — China or Russia — must be prevented. Outside this zone, Martirosyan assesses, the U.S. operates with a more pragmatic logic: if it has sufficient power, it applies pressure; if not, it seeks to advance its interests through other actors.
Turkey as the main instrument
According to Martirosyan, within this logic Armenia has never been viewed as an actor capable of independently advancing American interests in the region. That role, he says, is assigned to Turkey.
He notes that in this context the project of forming “Turan” continues, within which Armenia is dangerously turning into an instrument. Martirosyan raises the question: what place will Armenia have once the new world order is fully shaped — when it becomes clear where American power is sufficient and where it is not?
TRIPP as a counterbalance tool
The expert notes that TRIPP clearly does not align with the interests of several major players — including Russia, Iran, China, and India. In his assessment, the project is rather seen as a tool that European actors may attempt to use to bring energy resources from Central Asia and the Caspian region to Europe, while simultaneously creating a counterbalance to Chinese influence.
However, Martirosyan stresses that this does not yet mean the project’s implementation is guaranteed or that it has long-term stability.
The return of a world of spheres of influence
Martirosyan’s main conclusion is clear: the world is moving toward a new world order in which spheres of influence will once again take shape. Where the boundaries of these zones will lie, under what conditions they will be agreed upon, and what role Armenia will be given — remains unclear.
“One thing is evident,” he emphasizes, “if this global logic continues, we will return to a system where spheres of influence will not be a theoretical concept, but a real political fact.”
In this uncertain environment, Martirosyan concludes, the key question for Armenia is not the names of projects, but with what strategic calculation and from what position the country will enter the emerging new game.