United States President Donald Trump has for some time assumed the role of the “architect of peace” between nations. Yet, behind these efforts lies the safeguarding of U.S. interests. Although he has not yet secured a photo opportunity at a signing ceremony, Trump recently held a comprehensive meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska about peace between Russia and Ukraine, during which every issue was discussed in detail. It is well known that Washington’s primary expectation from this process concerns Ukraine’s valuable mineral resources. While the process continues, last week Trump mediated yet another peace agreement.
Within the framework of the Zangezur Corridor, now renamed the “Trump Corridor”, on which Turkey has also based its Caucasus strategies, Washington secured its share of the peace deal brokered between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
So, who has gained, and who has lost in the process leading to this agreement? Journalist Aykan Sever spoke to ANF about the new balance shaped by the deal.
A peace agreement was signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia under the mediation of the United States. The Zangezur Corridor agreement included Washington as a party, and the corridor was renamed the “Trump Corridor.” From a regional perspective, however, who are the winners, and who are the losers of this new arrangement? Does this equation truly mean gains or losses, or is the process still ongoing and subject to change?
After 2015, as part of what we describe as the “Third World War,” the war in Syria spilled over into the South Caucasus around 2015–2016, bringing tensions in the region. The rivalry between Russia, the United States, and Turkey gradually began to find expression through the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. There were mutual border skirmishes, and in April 2016, a three- to four-day conflict erupted in Karabakh. At that time, Zekai Aksakallı and Turkish forces were directly involved at the command level. I wrote then that this region was becoming another arena of a war for partition. What is happening now is, in fact, a continuation of that process.
Of course, the peoples of the region were in desperate need of peace. Yet what we are seeing now are not peace processes that grant voice or participation to the peoples, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Georgians, Yazidi (Êzidî) Kurds, and other minorities living in the region, but rather geostrategic rivalries.
Let us suppose that Trump brought two leaders together under his supervision. Naturally, each country has its own interests; it is not entirely a product of Trump’s or America’s needs. A certain balance has been reached between the parties. However, it is largely a process dictated and directed by Washington. Ultimately, the United States seeks to assert influence in what can be described as the Third World War. Especially under Trump, we are witnessing a process in which power is being used much more forcefully, and in quotation marks, “positively” in favor of America.
For example, Trump ended the war or rather the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia. Similarly, he played a role in easing tensions between India and Pakistan. Now, he is attempting something comparable here. Yet, because he has assumed leadership over wars, we can also say that the war unfolding across the broader Middle East since the Hamas attacks has now drawn in the South Caucasus as well. The United States is trying to establish an order dominated by Israel and Washington; that is essentially the summary. By bringing the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan closer, it has achieved this to some extent. Nothing has yet been concluded, but an important step has been taken. This step already has many repercussions.
What are the implications of this agreement for the region? In particular, what picture emerges for Russia and Iran?
Firstly, this development must be interpreted as a step taken against Iran, Russia, and even China. Although there were congratulatory statements from Iran regarding the matter, there were also general reactions concerning the involvement of the United States in the process.
It is important to underline the following: the Turkish media has published articles raising expectations such as “Russia will not let this stand, Iran will take action.” Firstly, Iran, particularly after the 12-day war, may recover and express something or take certain steps against the United States. However, it is almost impossible for them to take measures capable of blocking this policy of the United States. From what we observe, they are struggling even with the water crisis. They are not able to cope with this issue, which, in my view, is actually the real problem.
Russia, on the other hand, is currently in negotiations with the United States both regarding Ukraine and the Syria-Palestine question. Therefore, Russia’s priority will likely be reaching an understanding. In fact, over time, Russia may adopt a more positive approach towards this move by the United States in the South Caucasus. For now, however, the initial reactions are still somewhat passive.
What exactly is the situation regarding China?
The Chinese ambassador to Turkey published an article in Cumhuriyet newspaper. It referred to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a strategy it has established to secure a place for itself in the world. The article emphasized that Turkey is an important partner in this project and called for developing cooperation, presenting a motivating message. Undoubtedly, China does not want to be on the losing side in any initiatives or steps it takes. It may have assumed that by bringing Turkey closer to its side, it could play a stabilizing role in this context. However, nothing has been finalized yet; there is not even a corridor in place. At this stage, there are only statements.
Is it likely to happen or not?
What matters is this: for now, the United States continues to lead the war and holds the power to direct the process. Therefore, rather than speculating on what Aliyev or Pashinyan might do, the focus is on what the Trump administration will decide. In this context, the United States is acting with what it considers a smart strategy. A preliminary protocol has been established. While no official agreement has yet been signed between Azerbaijan and Armenia, there has been a kind of commitment that an agreement will be signed. It is unlikely that either Azerbaijan or Armenia will easily withdraw from this.
There is another aspect: the United States presented both countries with proposals that fit their own interests. For some time, Armenia has been trying to become a technology hub. Partnerships in this area were initiated even before the protocol. The plan is to turn the country into a center for artificial intelligence, largely through cheap labor. There is already an infrastructure for this. While it is not expected to replace India, even modest outcomes from such a move are considered possible. Moreover, between 8,000 and 10,000 young specialists in science and technology who have emigrated from Russia are now in Armenia. This provides a significant workforce which American science and technology is trying to utilize. For Armenia, this could also become a path forward, since the country lacks other substantial sources of production.
The other matter concerns Azerbaijan: the government is working to transform the country into an energy hub, an actor that purchases energy within its borders and then exports it to other countries. Azerbaijan not only has its own oil and gas but is also positioning itself at the center of a distribution network for petroleum and gas coming from partner countries. The European Union and Western states are particularly eager for this, and American capital is offering investment pledges. Currently, Azerbaijan’s production levels are underdeveloped, and until recently Russia had significant influence over Azerbaijan’s oil and gas sector. Now, Western, particularly American, investments are aiming to expand this resource base. This picture suits the Aliyev administration perfectly. In the coming period, we will likely see an Azerbaijan that has grown much stronger economically, while issues of authoritarianism are ignored and Aliyev’s dictatorship is effectively endorsed and legitimized. In short, this protocol serves the interests of all parties involved, while appearing to work against China, Iran, and Russia.
Where does Turkey stand in this picture? For instance, has the dream project that Turkish nationalists and the Justice and Development Party (AKP) referred to as the “Turan Line (a pan-Turkic dream of uniting Turkic peoples)” completely collapsed?
Until just one or two years ago, Turkey was in a leading position in the region. However, Western powers, Israel, and certain Arab states pushed to bring Azerbaijan forward as a regional power, and they ultimately became the decisive actors. Turkey was unable to assert the level of influence it desired. At present, it remains to some extent an observer, though this does not mean it is entirely outside the process. The United States still needs Turkey in the region, at least as a military force. Even in the role of a subcontractor, Turkey will continue to function as an auxiliary power. But the situation will not unfold in the way Turkey had dreamed, such as with the “Turan Line” they promoted in their propaganda. If such a project ever comes into existence, it will only be under the control of the United States.
You summarized the strategic positions of many states. So, what do these developments mean for the people living there?
The most critical issue is this: in the new agreement, the borders of the former Soviet Union are recognized as legitimate. Yet because of the occupations within Armenian territory, the borders left behind by the Soviet Union are effectively being violated. More importantly, Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), home to 120,000 people, had an autonomous status under the Soviet Union. That status is now being erased in practice and no one is mentioning it, not even the Armenian government. These 120,000 people have been turned into refugees. We have seen that part of the Armenian population, including members of the government, do not want those displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh to come, and even display racist attitudes towards them. In summary, Prime Minister Pashinyan practically did not want them to arrive. This constitutes a serious breach of wartime norms. Ultimately, these people have been uprooted from their lands. Some circles are describing this as a continuation of genocide. This is an important reality.
At first glance, this process looks like an agreement between states. In reality, it is part of a larger game of geostrategic maneuvering. But for us, the real issue is finding a way to turn this into peace for the people. At the very least, the relative removal of the threat of war should be transformed into peace among the peoples. That requires justice. For instance, Armenian prisoners are still being held in Azerbaijan after the last Nagorno-Karabakh War, and they have not been released. The agreement says nothing about this. There are general declarations on human rights, yes, but the dictatorship in Azerbaijan remains, and it cannot be said that Armenia’s government is truly democratic either. Against all this, we need to cultivate a more critical stance.
This also signals a greater danger. What appears to be simply a trade, supply, or energy corridor is, in reality, also a front for preparations for war against Iran. We must find a way to prevent this, because it is not just an Iranian matter. This is a direct theater of the so-called Third World War. If we cannot stop this war in its entirety, there will be no peace in Turkey or anywhere else. To block the dynamics of this Third World War, we must form a new kind of front, whether a peace front or a struggle to create a new world. Without this, the war would not end. If we can step out of the role of spectators and build a stance that ends these injustices, then we may achieve something meaningful.