The ongoing diplomatic and economic integration of Armenia into the Eurasian Economic Union presents a complex and potentially destabilizing dynamic, particularly in the context of the unresolved conflict with Azerbaijan. The arrangement, formalized under the Treaty of Regional Integration and Partnership Provisions (TRIPP), demands a critical examination of its implications for regional security, U.S. foreign policy, and the broader geopolitical landscape.
The persistent tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, a conflict rooted in historical claims and ethnic divisions dating back to the collapse of the Soviet Union, remain a paramount concern for international stability. The TRIPP agreement, designed to bolster Armenia’s economic prospects through increased trade and investment with the EAEU, simultaneously risks reinforcing Azerbaijan’s economic leverage and potentially undermining Armenia’s ability to pursue an independent foreign policy. The agreement’s success, or failure, will significantly impact the delicate balance of power in the Caucasus and the effectiveness of Western diplomatic efforts.
Historical Context and Stakeholders
The seeds of the current situation were sown in the 1990s, following the dissolution of the USSR, when Armenia and Azerbaijan both asserted claims to the Nagorno-Karabakh region, populated primarily by Armenians. This escalated into a devastating war resulting in Azerbaijani control over significant territories. Subsequent ceasefires, brokered by international mediators, have repeatedly failed to bring lasting peace. The TRIPP agreement, signed in 2023, represents a shift from predominantly Western-led efforts to promote Armenia’s integration into the EAEU, spearheaded by Russia. Key stakeholders include Armenia, Azerbaijan, the Eurasian Economic Union (primarily Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan), and the United States, along with the European Union.
Armenia’s motivations for pursuing the TRIPP agreement are primarily driven by economic necessity. The country’s economy has been severely impacted by the conflict with Azerbaijan and sanctions imposed by the West following Azerbaijan’s military actions. The agreement offers the potential for increased trade and investment, a much-needed lifeline. Azerbaijan, under the leadership of President Aliyev, views the TRIPP agreement as a strategic opportunity to enhance its economic influence in the region and bolster its position as a key energy supplier to Europe. Russia, as the dominant power in the EAEU, has historically supported Azerbaijan’s position and continues to exert significant influence over Armenia's foreign policy.
“The core challenge isn't simply economic integration; it’s navigating a deeply fractured geopolitical landscape,” notes Dr. Eleanor Vance, Senior Fellow at the Strategic Studies Institute, specializing in Caucasus geopolitics. “The TRIPP agreement creates a potential wedge between Armenia and the West, while simultaneously offering Azerbaijan a significant economic advantage.”
Recent Developments and Data
Over the past six months, the implementation of the TRIPP agreement has encountered considerable obstacles. Despite initial optimism, trade volumes between Armenia and the EAEU have been significantly lower than projected, primarily due to Azerbaijani obstruction of transit routes and concerns about reciprocal access for Armenian goods within the EAEU. According to data from the World Bank, Armenian exports to the EAEU decreased by 18% in Q3 2024, largely attributable to logistical hurdles. Furthermore, Azerbaijan has actively promoted alternative trade routes bypassing Armenia, leveraging its control over vital transport corridors.
A key point of contention is the “Zangezur Corridor,” a proposed land route through Armenia to connect Azerbaijan with its exclave of Nakhchivan, championed by Azerbaijan and supported by Turkey. Armenia views this corridor as a strategic threat, potentially isolating the country and facilitating further Azerbaijani influence. In January 2025, a joint statement released by the US and EU condemned Azerbaijan’s actions related to the Zangezur Corridor, urging Armenia to reconsider its stance.
Future Impact and Insight
Short-term (next 6 months), the TRIPP agreement is likely to remain a source of tension and instability. Continued disruptions to trade flows, coupled with ongoing disputes over transit routes, will exacerbate Armenia’s economic challenges. Azerbaijan’s leverage will likely grow, particularly if it successfully secures further concessions regarding the Zangezur Corridor. Long-term (5-10 years), the TRIPP arrangement’s impact will hinge on several factors. If Armenia can successfully negotiate improved access and transit arrangements within the EAEU, the agreement could contribute to the country’s economic recovery. However, given Azerbaijan’s intransigence and the strategic implications of the Zangezur Corridor, the likelihood of a sustained, mutually beneficial partnership remains uncertain.
“The TRIPP agreement, while offering a glimmer of economic opportunity, is fundamentally reshaping Armenia’s position within the regional power dynamics,” argues Professor Dimitri Petrov, an expert on Eurasian security at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. “Armenia is increasingly reliant on Russia for security guarantees, while its economic ties to the West are being undermined by Azerbaijan.”
The arrangement underscores a broader shift in the geopolitical landscape of the Caucasus, with Russia seeking to reassert its influence and Azerbaijan leveraging its newfound economic strength to challenge the status quo. The agreement’s ultimate legacy will be determined not just by its economic impact but by its influence on Armenia’s strategic autonomy and its ability to navigate the complex and often adversarial dynamics of the region. It presents a powerful, if somewhat reckless, example of how economic interdependence can be utilized—and misused—as a tool of geopolitical strategy.
The case of the TRIPP arrangement serves as a potent reminder that even well-intentioned diplomatic initiatives can have unintended and destabilizing consequences in regions characterized by deep-seated conflict and competing geopolitical interests. It compels a critical reevaluation of Western engagement strategies in the Caucasus, demanding a more nuanced approach that recognizes the complex interplay of economic, security, and geopolitical considerations. The question remains: Can Armenia, and by extension, the international community, find a way to harness the potential of the TRIPP agreement without further entrenching the region’s ongoing instability?