The United States is attempting to craft a narrative of a “peacemaking America” — a country that no longer primarily appeals to universal values but acts pragmatically, driven by business-oriented approaches, positioning itself as a global “peace establisher.” This was stated by political analyst Alexander Iskandaryan, commenting on the Washington meeting between Pashinyan, Trump, and Aliyev.
According to Iskandaryan, in the context of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, the Washington event is primarily symbolic. It reflects not so much a new political reality as the process of formalizing the realities established after 2020. “The real changes happened earlier, at three key moments. The first was 2020, when the war was lost. The second was 2022, the start of the Russia-Ukraine war. The third was 2023, the deportation of the population from Karabakh, which marked not only the liquidation of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic but also the effective cessation of the territory controlled by Karabakh structures, along with its population,” the expert noted.
Iskandaryan believes the current processes are essentially about legitimizing the existing situation. He argues that the configuration of the negotiation process limits the possibilities for balanced solutions. “The involvement of third, fourth, or other parties in negotiations creates certain frameworks and mechanisms for institutionalizing the process. When the negotiation format includes only two parties — one having achieved an unequivocal victory and the other suffering a de facto defeat — an element of coercion inevitably emerges. As a result, the provisions outlined in official documents take the form of ultimatums rather than proposals.”
Optimism about the imminent unblocking of communications and the establishment of peace appears premature. If state borders are opened, interstate relations normalized, transport links with Turkey restored, and a peace treaty signed to open all communications, what is the need for the TRIPP project, Iskandaryan questions. He emphasizes that in such conditions, there would be no need for long-term contracts transferring infrastructure management to any party. The only practical task would be constructing a missing 42-kilometer railway section.
Overall, Iskandaryan continues, it remains unclear what the TRIPP project entails: its location, form of implementation, and operational framework. The statements provided contain too many gaps, inconsistencies, and ambiguities to enable substantive discussion, the political analyst believes. He suggests that there seems to be a lack of clear understanding not only among the public but also among the meeting’s direct participants — Trump, Aliyev, and Pashinyan.
According to the expert, there is no thoroughly developed plan for the project’s implementation in reality. “Is it even possible to resolve such issues given the complex configuration of parties — Russia, the EU, Iran, and the U.S. — which strongly distrust each other?” Iskandaryan notes. He stresses that such projects require years of meticulous technical work, coordinating every detail, including phrasing down to individual commas and letters. Currently, there are only declarations of intent, but the gap between declarations and concrete actions is vast, requiring time, political will, and significant resources.