Only a few days remain until Armenia’s upcoming parliamentary elections, and the domestic political environment is becoming increasingly tense, given the intensity of the political competition and the reports of alleged repression being raised by opposition groups and regularly circulating on social media and news outlets. What is particularly noteworthy is that the outcome of Armenia’s elections has attracted significant attention from both Russia and the United States, with each country publicly expressing its views regarding the political developments taking place in Armenia.
In Russia’s case, this interest is understandable. Moscow seeks to gain a clearer understanding of the future trajectory of Armenia’s relations with the European Union and the broader geopolitical direction the country may take following the elections. Therefore, Russia is putting some pressure on Armenia threatening with sanctions on Armenian products in Russian markets. I would suggest, however, focusing on US policy toward Armenia, as it differs significantly from anything we have previously witnessed from earlier American administrations since 1992. The current US approach represents a notable departure from the traditional patterns of Washington’s engagement with Armenia and merits closer examination.
Within only a few weeks, the United States has expressed direct support for Armenia’s prime minister on three separate occasions and in different forms. This is, of course, unprecedented, as it is difficult to recall any instance in which support for an Armenian leader or the representative of an opposition was voiced at the level of the US president or secretary of state. Yet all of this has occurred within just the past few weeks. Even if we set aside Vice President JD Vance’s visit and his direct statement of support, we must also take into account Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit and the support he expressed regarding the prime minister’s reelection, followed by President Trump’s social media post and then Rubio’s subsequent remarks during Senate discussions. It is difficult to remember anything comparable in Armenia’s modern history.
Many have described this as extraordinary support, while others have viewed it as a direct interference in Armenia’s internal affairs. However, I believe the underlying reason is that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has fully committed himself to advancing American interests in the South Caucasus, particularly through the implementation of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). As a result, the United States would gain a direct connection between Central Asia and the South Caucasus while simultaneously securing significant influence over this route and corridor.
In essence, this would provide Washington with an opportunity to establish a substantial presence in the South Caucasus — and especially in Armenia — a region that has never historically been part of an American sphere of influence. For the United States, this represents a historic opportunity, and the Trump administration is likely to take advantage of it as long as the window of opportunity remains open.
This situation is also unique because of the lack of meaningful resistance from Russia and Iran, as well as the Armenian government’s strong support for Trump’s approach. It is evident that TRIPP has become the only realistic framework through which Armenia and Azerbaijan can achieve a peace agreement and there appear to be no viable alternative. If TRIPP is not implemented, Azerbaijan could view this as a legitimate opportunity to pursue control over a corridor through Syunik region of Armenia.
