The evolving political discourse in and around Armenia suggests that foreign policy processes are increasingly concentrated around a single, highly constrained strategic axis.
Three processes, one dependency
According to political analyst Suren Sargsyan, Yerevan has effectively linked the normalization of Armenia–Azerbaijan relations to the implementation of the TRIPP project, while Ankara, in turn, conditions progress in Armenia–Turkey relations on developments in the Armenia–Azerbaijan track.
As a result, a chain of interconnected processes has emerged: the TRIPP project, Armenia–Azerbaijan relations, and Armenia–Turkey relations. These three directions no longer function independently but have become a unified framework, where each component depends on the others. “In such conditions, the failure of any one element immediately impacts the rest,” the analyst notes.
At present, there is no significant progress on TRIPP, which in turn slows down related processes. However, the issue extends beyond the regional level.
Sargsyan highlights the role of external factors, noting that the project’s prospects are closely tied to US–Iran relations. Tehran’s behavior during recent tensions has demonstrated its capacity to influence not only military developments but also economic initiatives in the region, including TRIPP.
Without TRIPP, the “corridor” returns
Discussing possible scenarios, Sargsyan suggests that if the project fails, Azerbaijan is likely to return to the concept of the so-called “Zangezur corridor.” “Whether it is labeled TRIPP or the ‘Zangezur corridor,’ the strategic objective remains the same; only the moderator of the process may change,” he explains.
In his assessment, the current situation leads to a clear conclusion: without TRIPP, it is difficult to envision progress either in Armenia–Azerbaijan peace efforts or in the normalization of Armenia–Turkey relations.
At the same time, the failure of the project increases the likelihood of alternative scenarios that could be more rigid and risk-prone.
According to Sargsyan, the core issue lies in the absence of viable alternatives. “The lack of alternatives represents another failure in Armenia’s foreign policy calculations,” he concludes.