TRIPP: IF it is so GREAT, then WHY behind CLOSED doors? |
TRIPP: IF it is so GREAT, then WHY behind CLOSED doors?
The Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), presented as a new pathway to peace and prosperity in the South Caucasus, may in reality turn out to be part of a much broader geopolitical game aimed at controlling Eurasian trade corridors.
Bigger scheme of things!
Yet the event itself raised more questions than it answered. One only needs to read the lines of official US State Department policy documents and between-the-lines of Atlantic Council news releases to see the true colours bleeding through. It is worth noting that the recent conference was held behind closed doors, with no public forum, no detailed funding plans, and no opportunity for independent scrutiny. Hence the roundtable contrasted sharply with the initiative’s lofty promises of prosperity and regional integration.
If TRIPP is meant to deliver economic opportunity and stability, why was it discussed only among political and commercial elites? Firstly, the secrecy surrounding its launch suggests that the project may be less about open development and more about strategic positioning—an open attempt to gain control over Eurasian trade routes in an era of intensifying rivalry with China, Iran, and the Russian Federation.
USACC Hosts Inaugural Ambassadorial Roundtable on TRIPP as a Cornerstone of the U.S. Eurasian Connectivity Strategy
“If it’s so great, why hide it?”
“If it’s so great, why hide it?”
It should raise questions that the event was a closed-door discussion that brought together ambassadors from the South Caucasus and Central Asia, senior U.S. government officials, and private-sector leaders to examine how TRIPP can accelerate infrastructure development, strengthen regional connectivity, and anchor a durable U.S. economic presence along the Middle Corridor.
Let’s cut to the chase and translate the press-release speak into plain English.
“A cornerstone of the U.S. Eurasian Connectivity Strategy” and how TRIPP will “anchor a durable U.S. economic presence” and “accelerate infrastructure development” … but for whose benefit, and who will be the winners and losers? In actuality, the U.S. wants influence over trade routes and infrastructure across Central Asia and the Caucasus (the so-called Middle Corridor), and this is key to the New Great Game, i.e., geopolitical positioning, and this makes the scales of power shifting between geopolitical interests as much about any so called economic development.
One should note that in reality, this is more about offsetting or countering China’s Belt & Road and Russia’s traditional dominance in the region. The “TRIPP” deal is likely a branding exercise for that strategy, not yet a fully built project that will create win-win outcomes for regional players. Its purpose, at least from the official perspective of Armenia, however, is a horse of a different colour.
Now, the closed-door part reveals the most, but we have to ask ourselves, “Why not a public development initiative, with local buy-in, aimed at transparency, where local stakeholders, including ordinary people, would see some benefit for themselves?” One would think that there would be open forums, including presentation of detailed plans for such Chamber of Commerce events, funding details, and what the opportunity for press engagement is, rather than just the press release. The event, as a whole, gives the impression that this may be more related to trying to control the region by the US government and special interests, close buddies, than to come close to any semblance of the higher valued claims and good intentions.
TRIPP is presented “Under the umbrella of the Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce,” which gives a business cover for what is really a strategic discussion. It sounds neutral, but it’s deeply political and takes this line of “renewed strategic engagement across Central Eurasia.” That is diplomatic double-speak, code for “We pulled back before, got distracted, and now we’re trying to reinsert ourselves, especially now that Iran is in our crosshairs.”
TRIPP: A Corridor of Power, Not Peace and Prosperity
Yet behind the rhetoric of cooperation and prosperity lies a far more strategic ambition: the reordering of influence over Eurasian transit routes, which may shift mostly in favour of the United States and its partners. TRIPP is billed as a transport and logistics corridor running through southern Armenia, linking Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhchivan and feeding into the so-called Middle Corridor—a route connecting China to Europe via Central Asia, the Caspian Sea, the South Caucasus, and Turkey. Such a project brings together railways, highways, energy infrastructure, and digital networks. It should come as no surprise that long-term development and management rights are expected to be held by Western-linked entities, which suggests that the project is less about grassroots development or conflict resolution than about geopolitical realignment.
The most likely main beneficiary is the United States. By securing a role in managing a key transit artery, it gains strategic access in the border regions to Iran. Washington also would be able to gain leverage over supply chains, energy flows, and regional trade. Infrastructure, in this sense, becomes a tool of diplomacy and military advantage. The project allows the U.S. to insert itself into a region long shaped by Russia and increasingly influenced by China under the guise of peacemaker.
Azerbaijan also stands to gain strategically. The corridor would cement its role as a transport hub linking the Caspian Basin to Turkey and Europe, reinforcing its regional position after its military victory over Armenia. Transit fees, logistics services, and political leverage all accrue to the state that controls the chokepoints. Turkey benefits as the western gateway of the route. Already a central player in the Middle Corridor, Ankara would further consolidate its role as the bridge between Europe and Asia.
Private-sector actors—construction firms, logistics companies, and energy interests—are among the quiet winners. Long-term concessions and operating rights promise steady revenue, especially for companies with political backing and financial capacity.
Russia and Iran emerge as the clearest losers. Both rely heavily on their position as transit states to maintain influence over neighbours. A U.S.-backed alternative corridor weakens that leverage, offering regional governments routes that bypass Moscow and Tehran.
China is not excluded from the corridor, but TRIPP competes with Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by diverting attention and traffic from routes China has financed. While not openly hostile to BRI, the project reflects a broader Western effort to counter China’s infrastructural footprint without directly confronting it.
Armenia’s position is the most complex. While it may receive investment and transit revenue, it risks ceding strategic autonomy over a sensitive region of its territory, leaving it reliant on American “good will.”
Why Ordinary People Are Unlikely to Benefit
Mega-corridors rarely deliver inclusive growth. Profits flow to construction firms, logistics operators, and political elites, while local economies risk becoming mere transit zones. Without sound developmental and industrial policy, manufacturing, and sustained local investment, roads and railways enable movement but not lasting prosperity.
The political risks are just as serious. Closed-door negotiations breed mistrust and corruption, especially in fragile post-conflict societies and corridors, and can deepen resentment rather than reconciliation. In Armenia, sovereignty and security concerns may outweigh promised revenues; in Azerbaijan, gains are likely to flow to state-linked elites; and in Central Asia, reliance on transit rents may entrench extractive models instead of encouraging diversification.
Nonetheless, TRIPP is being marketed as a highway to prosperity, but it resembles another front in an infrastructure arms race. Lacking transparency, local ownership, and real economic integration, it risks becoming a mega-project built for faraway and narrow special interests. Strip away the branding, and it appears less a development corridor than a power corridor—an effort to redraw Eurasia’s map in the language of partnership. History suggests such schemes rarely transform the lives of the locals from below.
Ultimately, this is not just about roads and railways but about influence, control, and who sets the rules and reaps the rewards. With Armenia’s political climate and upcoming elections adding uncertainty, TRIPP’s promise of peace and prosperity remains far more rhetorical than real.
The political and social situation, particularly the upcoming elections in Armenia, will further complicate matters in the final analysis.
Henry Kamens, columnist and expert on Central Asia and the Caucasus
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel