In recent weeks, a new American initiative to unblock communications in the South Caucasus has been actively discussed in Armenia and beyond. The essence of this idea is the creation of a transport corridor between Armenia and Azerbaijan, where the construction and maintenance of infrastructure, including a railway, would be carried out by a private foreign (presumably American) company. According to the proposed model, this company would also be responsible for security in the section located on Armenian territory. Official Yerevan emphasizes that the country’s sovereignty is not compromised in this scenario, but numerous questions remain, ranging from mechanisms of actual control to the principle of reciprocity from Baku. Amid these discussions, a critical question arises: is the American initiative part of Washington’s long-term strategy to establish a foothold in the South Caucasus, or is it rather a tactical move reflecting the situational interests of the Donald Trump administration?
The U.S. Lacks a Consistent Desire to Be Part of the Region
Conflictologist Olesya Vartanyan considers this one of the key questions in the current situation: “This is a very good question, and perhaps even the most important one in this entire story. For Yerevan, it is, of course, crucial that if someone gets involved, even if they are not directly at the negotiating table but at least propose solutions, their participation does not stop. There needs to be stable communication with both Baku and Yerevan, and perhaps further steps should be proposed. It’s very important that these proposals are followed by long-term support and oversight to ensure their implementation.” According to Vartanyan, Yerevan’s main goal is to sign a peace agreement, which should lead to the opening of borders and the establishment of diplomatic relations. However, the situation remains in limbo, which, in her words, “weakens Armenia’s position regardless of who is in power.” At the same time, she notes that American foreign policy is characterized by “unconventionality” and unpredictability: “It’s interesting that it was an American proposal to become a participant or facilitator of transport communication between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Perhaps the roots of this proposal trace back to the experience with Ukraine, when the U.S. tried to establish itself in processes through deals related to rare metals. In that case, the document ended up being even more beneficial for Ukraine than expected.” Nevertheless, the question of the longevity of U.S. involvement remains open: “It seems to me that the U.S.—neither this administration nor previous ones—has a consistent desire to be part of the region. Their involvement is more reactive: when something significant happens in the region, they have to respond to avoid further costs. But at the same time, if they can help, why not? The question is only how long-lasting this involvement will be.” Vartanyan emphasizes that the Armenian-Azerbaijani process is not at a critical deadlock today—there is a chance for progress, and in this sense, even limited American involvement could be beneficial. However, expecting the U.S. to “come, solve everything, and take control of the region” is an illusion that does not align with either the spirit of the current administration or the trends of American foreign policy over the past 15–20 years.
The Main Question Now Is Not Armenia’s Position
According to political scientist Tigran Grigoryan, Donald Trump’s recent statement about the “imminent resolution of the conflict” only underscores that the U.S. is indeed involved in the negotiation process at a high level: “From what I understood in Washington, the process involves the vice president and Trump himself, with the main coordination handled by a special envoy. Armenia may view this option as the lesser evil—better a foreign private company than control by Russia.” However, the main question now is not Armenia’s position: “It seems that Yerevan is ready to accept this format. But whether Azerbaijan will agree is the real intrigue. Baku is wary of damaging relations with Iran, which is categorically opposed to any foreign presence near its borders, and with Russia, with which, despite a crisis in relations, strategic ties remain. Azerbaijan’s policy in recent years has been aimed at minimizing Western influence in the region, and even the involvement of a private American company causes irritation.” Thus, despite the formally stated principles and the public interest of the U.S., the fate of the initiative remains uncertain—both in terms of its sustainability and the willingness of all parties to implement it.