The four-day regional visit of U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance to Armenia and Azerbaijan was received with great fanfare by the Armenian authorities. Government officials, led by Nikol Pashinyan, described the visit as “historic,” emphasizing that Armenian-American relations were entering a new phase. However, the same visit was presented in a completely different manner in Azerbaijan’s information space.
According to Azerbaijani studies expert and PhD in history Tatev Hayrapetyan, the visit was covered in Baku in an extremely restrained, almost imperceptible way. “In the Azerbaijani media, I did not see the emphasis or the ‘spark’ that they tried to create in Armenia. On the contrary, it was presented as yet another, largely protocol-oriented visit,” she notes.
Azerbaijan Is Multivector, Armenia Is One-Sided
Before and during the visit, there was active discussion about whether Vance would raise the issue of releasing Armenian prisoners of war. According to Hayrapetyan, no clear public statements were made on this issue, and it is impossible to say whether it was discussed during closed-door meetings.
At the same time, before leaving Yerevan, Vance stated that he would also raise the issue in Baku. Here, the expert believes an important leverage for Armenia could be U.S. President Donald Trump’s statement of August 7, in which the American side expressed readiness to support efforts to resolve the prisoner issue. “This statement should be revisited regularly, and the American side should be reminded of its own commitments,” Hayrapetyan emphasizes.
She also notes that on the eve of the visit, Azerbaijan was working quite actively in the direction of China, once again demonstrating its multivector foreign policy. “Unlike Armenia, which clearly identifies the United States as its main partner, Azerbaijan avoids dependence on a single center and maneuvers in various directions,” she says.
Overall, aside from jokes directed at Aliyev, Vance’s visit fit within the framework of classical protocol diplomacy.
The TRIPP Project: Corridor or Opportunity
Nikol Pashinyan’s post-visit interview with public television revealed several alarming details. In particular, the prime minister effectively admitted that he had familiarized himself with some of the proposed documents only at the final stage. “This shows that we are not dealing with a document negotiated over a long period, but rather with a ready-made version placed on the table, requiring a quick ‘yes’ or ‘no’,” the expert notes.
Special attention was drawn to the TRIPP investment project. According to Hayrapetyan, if this project were truly a purely Armenian-American initiative, the issue of Azerbaijan’s signature would not arise. “If there was no connection to Azerbaijan, why is their signature on that document?” she asks.
According to the expert, nothing has been finally decided yet: there is a general framework, but the substance is shaped during negotiations. And it is precisely here that the quality of the negotiator becomes decisive.
Hayrapetyan stresses that under the current complex geopolitical conditions — with active U.S. involvement, Russia’s wait-and-see stance, and ongoing instability in Iran — it is vital for Armenia who negotiates and how.
“TRIPP can become either a dangerous corridor or a real opportunity for Armenia. But this depends on how much the negotiator is guided by state interests and long-term thinking,” she concludes.