Recent weeks have seen increased activity around two major American initiatives: Donald Trump’s plan for resolving the Russia-Ukraine war and the TRIPP project aimed at addressing the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.
According to analysts, the United States is now paying closer attention to Moscow’s position. This raises questions about the possible consequences for other actors. What risks does Trump’s activity carry for the Russia-Ukraine direction, and how might it affect American projects in the South Caucasus? Political analyst Stepan Danielyan offers his view.
Not a Russia-Ukraine War, but a Russia-Europe War
Danielyan argues that the situation must be described correctly. The conflict should be seen not as a “Russia-Ukraine war” but as a “Russia-Europe war.” He stresses another key element: the U.S. administration is now ignoring Europe’s position.
He recalls former EU High Representative Josep Borrell, who said: “Today’s America, Trump’s America, is not Europe’s ally.”
According to Danielyan, the conflict is reaching its conclusion, and in this context, “Europe has lost.”
A New World Order Is Emerging
Danielyan highlights an unprecedented fact: for the first time in 500 years, Europe’s opinion is not being considered in a European war settlement.
“The President of the United States is discussing the outcome of the war with the President of Russia. This is a fundamental shift,” he states.
He argues that Europe is leaving global politics. The main players are now Russia, the United States, and China, and later—other economically strong states.
He compares the current moment to historical peace conferences held after major wars, where new world orders were shaped. Today, however, Europe is not “at the table.” It can protest, but strategically it has already been removed from the game.
Russia as a Third Party in the South Caucasus
Danielyan connects this global shift to the TRIPP project. According to circulating information, the United States insists on involving a third party in the initiative—and that party should be Russia.
He notes that he predicted this months ago: “There will be a third party — Russia.”
The South Caucasus, he argues, can become either a zone of conflict or a zone of cooperation. If Russia is excluded, the region risks descending into conflict, especially given Iran’s strong interest in the area and in Syunik in particular.
US-Russia Cooperation in Ukraine as a Model
Asked what role Russia might play in the unblocking of the region and in the TRIPP route, Danielyan points to the Ukraine case.
Reports claim that funds from Russia’s frozen assets are being redirected by the U.S. and Russia into joint projects. There are also claims about agreements regarding Donbas resources: Ukraine receives about 100 billion, while the rest becomes jointly managed, with the U.S. taking 50% of the revenue.
If such cooperation is happening in Ukraine, Danielyan concludes, it is natural to expect similar cooperation in the South Caucasus—particularly regarding the proposed TRIPP corridor through Syunik.