Analyzing Trump’s Role in Mediating Azerbaijan-Armenia Relations: Diverse Perspectives on the ‘Peace’ Process

Trump Brokers Historic, Yet Fraught, Peace Deal Between Armenia and Azerbaijan

Washington D.C. – On August 8, 2025, Former President Donald Trump hosted a trilateral meeting at the White House, bringing together President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia. The resulting agreement, dubbed the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP), aims to resolve decades of conflict between the two nations, but faces immediate scrutiny and lingering questions.

A History of Conflict and Recent Escalations

The relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been defined by a protracted dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, which saw multiple armed conflicts.The 2020 war resulted in Azerbaijan regaining control of critically important territory, supported by Turkey. A Russian-brokered ceasefire followed, with Moscow deploying peacekeeping forces. However, tensions remained high, notably concerning the Lachin corridor – the sole land link between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.

In December 2022, Azerbaijan effectively blockaded the Lachin corridor, leading to a severe humanitarian crisis. International law prohibits the use of starvation as a method of warfare, yet the blockade continued for nine months. this culminated in a large-scale Azerbaijani offensive in September 2023, forcing the dissolution of the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh and the exodus of its Armenian population. Critics accused Western powers of a muted response, while Russia’s role came under question.

The TRIPP Agreement: Key Provisions and Concerns

The TRIPP agreement centers around establishing a transportation corridor through Armenia, connecting azerbaijan with its exclave, Nakhichevan.This corridor,initially outlined in the 2020 ceasefire agreement,has been a major point of contention. Azerbaijan has already occupied at least 215 square kilometers of Armenian territory since 2020, a matter not directly addressed in the new agreement.

The United States is positioned to oversee the operation of this corridor, with potential infrastructure investment and security guarantees, but without deploying military personnel. This has raised concerns in Armenia, which fears losing control over its sovereign territory and becoming overly reliant on the U.S. while concurrently worrying about a potential response from Russia,which maintains a military base in Armenia.

Issue	Previous Status	TRIPP Agreement Impact
Lachin Corridor	Blocked by Azerbaijan (2022-2023)	Replaced by Zangezur/TRIPP corridor through Armenia
Nagorno-Karabakh	Under Armenian Control (until 2023)	Dissolved; population displaced
Territorial Disputes	Ongoing	Not fully addressed; Azerbaijan occupies Armenian territory

Geopolitical Implications and Regional reactions

Iran has strongly opposed the TRIPP project, viewing a U.S. presence on its border as a threat and labeling the initiative a “great betrayal.” Prime Minister Pashinyan has sought to reassure Iran and Russia, suggesting their potential involvement in the project, a move met with skepticism. The United Kingdom and the European Union have recently imposed sanctions on Azerbaijani individuals and companies linked to Russian oil trade, adding another layer of complexity.

Did You Know? Armenia’s economy was heavily reliant on trade through Russia and Iran before the recent geopolitical shifts, making diversification crucial.

Pro Tip: monitor geopolitical developments closely, as the situation in the South Caucasus remains highly volatile.

Unresolved Issues and Future Challenges

Despite the agreement, critical issues remain unresolved. Azerbaijan continues to hold Armenian prisoners of war and has disregarded rulings by the International Court of Justice regarding their release and the right of return for displaced populations. Article XV of the preliminary treaty, requiring the withdrawal of all interstate claims, has been criticized for perhaps legitimizing Azerbaijan’s alleged war crimes and conduct during the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The long-term success of TRIPP hinges on addressing thes outstanding concerns and fostering genuine trust between Armenia and Azerbaijan. the agreement represents a potentially transformative moment, but considerable challenges lie ahead.

Regional Stability and the role of External Actors

The south Caucasus region has long been a geopolitical crossroads, attracting the influence of Russia, Turkey, Iran, and the west. The TRIPP agreement marks a significant shift in this dynamic, potentially reducing Russia’s leverage and increasing U.S.involvement. Though,the involvement of multiple actors also increases the risk of further escalation if their interests are not aligned. Maintaining regional stability will require continued diplomatic efforts and a commitment to addressing the root causes of the conflict.

Frequently Asked Questions

• What is the primary goal of the TRIPP agreement? The TRIPP agreement aims to establish a transportation corridor connecting Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan through Armenia, fostering regional trade and stability.
• What are the main concerns regarding the TRIPP agreement? Concerns include Armenia’s potential loss of sovereignty,the unresolved status of territorial disputes,and the humanitarian situation of displaced populations.
• What is iran’s stance on the TRIPP agreement? iran strongly opposes the agreement, viewing a U.S. presence on its border as a security threat.
• What role did Russia play in the previous conflicts? Russia brokered the 2020 ceasefire and deployed peacekeeping forces, but its neutrality and effectiveness have been questioned.
• What are Azerbaijan’s obligations under the TRIPP agreement? Azerbaijan is expected to adhere to the terms of the agreement, including ensuring safe passage through the new corridor, and addressing the remaining humanitarian concerns.

What are your thoughts on the long-term viability of this peace agreement given the history of conflict?

Do you believe the U.S. can effectively mediate and guarantee the security of the TRIPP corridor?

Share your insights and join the discussion below!

How did Trump’s preference for bilateral deals differ from previous U.S. approaches to the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, and what were the perceived consequences of this shift?

The Shifting Dynamics of Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Resolution

The decades-long conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh region has been a complex geopolitical puzzle. While numerous international actors have attempted mediation, the involvement of former U.S. President Donald Trump introduced a distinctly diffrent approach. This article analyzes Trump’s role, examining diverse perspectives on the resulting “peace” process, its successes, failures, and lasting implications for the South Caucasus. Key terms related to this analysis include Nagorno-Karabakh,Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict,Trump mediation,peace negotiations,and South Caucasus geopolitics.

Trump’s Approach: A Departure from Traditional Diplomacy

Traditionally, U.S.policy towards the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict, often channeled through the Minsk Group co-chaired by the U.S., Russia, and France, emphasized a status quo of managed conflict. Trump’s administration, however, signaled a willingness to challenge established norms.

Emphasis on bilateral Deals: Trump favored bilateral negotiations, bypassing the established multilateral framework of the Minsk Group. This contrasted sharply with previous administrations’ reliance on the OSCE Minsk Group’s mediation efforts.

Closer Ties with Azerbaijan: The administration cultivated a stronger relationship with Azerbaijan, largely due to its energy resources and strategic importance in regional security. This perceived tilt towards Baku raised concerns in Armenia and among some U.S. foreign policy analysts.

Limited Public Engagement: Compared to previous administrations, Trump showed limited public engagement on the issue, often deferring to his team and avoiding direct, high-profile mediation efforts. This hands-off approach was seen by some as a intentional strategy, while others criticized it as a lack of commitment.

Focus on economic Opportunities: The administration explored potential economic opportunities in the region, believing that economic interdependence could foster stability. This included discussions about energy projects and infrastructure progress.

Key Events and Interventions During the Trump Years

Several key events defined Trump’s involvement in the Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict:

1. 2018 Meeting with Aliyev and Pashinyan: Trump hosted separate meetings with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan during the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly. these meetings,while symbolic,represented a departure from the previous U.S. approach of equal engagement with both sides through the Minsk Group.
2. Increased military Aid to Azerbaijan (Controversial): Reports surfaced regarding increased U.S. military aid to Azerbaijan during this period. Critics argued this emboldened Azerbaijan and undermined the peace process,while proponents maintained it was necessary for regional security and counter-terrorism efforts.
3. 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War – U.S. Response: The outbreak of large-scale hostilities in september 2020 presented a significant challenge. The Trump administration’s response was largely characterized by calls for a ceasefire and a return to negotiations, but lacked a strong, proactive diplomatic push.
4. The November 2020 Ceasefire Agreement: The ceasefire agreement brokered by Russia, with limited U.S. involvement, resulted in significant territorial gains for Azerbaijan. This outcome was viewed differently by various stakeholders.

diverse Perspectives on the ‘Peace’ Process

The assessment of Trump’s role and the resulting “peace” process is highly polarized:

Azerbaijani Outlook: Azerbaijan views Trump’s administration favorably, believing its pragmatic approach and willingness to challenge the status quo created an environment conducive to achieving its objectives. They see the 2020 ceasefire as a victory and a restoration of territorial integrity. Azerbaijan’s foreign policy is central to this viewpoint.

Armenian Perspective: Armenia largely views Trump’s administration negatively, arguing its perceived bias towards Azerbaijan undermined the peace process and contributed to the loss of territory in the 2020 war. Many Armenians believe the U.S. abandoned its traditional role as a neutral mediator.Armenian national security concerns are paramount here.

U.S. Foreign Policy Experts: Opinions among U.S. foreign policy experts are divided. Some argue Trump’s unconventional approach, while risky, ultimately forced a resolution to a long-standing conflict.Others criticize his lack of engagement and perceived bias, arguing it damaged U.S. credibility and regional stability. U.S. diplomacy in the South Caucasus is a key area of debate.

Russian Perspective: Russia benefited from the limited U.S. involvement, solidifying its role as the primary mediator and security guarantor in the region. The 2020 ceasefire agreement, brokered by Russia, significantly enhanced its influence in the