SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Research Journal / 2026 / Volume: 8 Issue: 3

THE VIABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF TRIPP IN THE MIDDLE CORRIDOR: OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

Syrym Parpiyev(Al-Farabi Kazakh National University)0000-0002-6031-3522
Adilbek Yermekbayev(Al-Farabi Kazakh National University)0000-0002-8464-8220
Nurat Ilyas(Al-Farabi Kazakh National University)0000-0002-9115-7243
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-07-29
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

However, these opportunities can be realized only through a governance framework that combines unimpeded connectivity with respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and jurisdiction, transparent institutional arrangements, regional coordination, local support along the route and equitable socioeconomic benefit-sharing.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article examines the viability and feasibility of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) as a potential component of the Middle Corridor.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It argues that TRIPP is strategically viable but only conditionally feasible, since its implementation depends on more than physical infrastructure.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:However, these opportunities can be realized only through a governance framework that combines unimpeded connectivity with respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and jurisdiction, transparent institutional arrangements, regional coordination, local support along the route and equitable socioeconomic benefit-sharing.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:TRIPP · Middle Corridor · South Caucasus

Abstract

This article examines the viability and feasibility of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) as a potential component of the Middle Corridor. It argues that TRIPP is strategically viable but only conditionally feasible, since its implementation depends on more than physical infrastructure. Using Critical Geopolitics, Connectivity Politics, and Risk Governance as analytical lenses, the study evaluates TRIPP as a politically sensitive connectivity project shaped by competing interpretations of unimpeded movement and sovereign jurisdiction, regional competition, legal uncertainty, local legitimacy, financing constraints, and the involvement of external actors. The article shows that TRIPP could strengthen Eurasian route diversification, restore direct and unimpeded connectivity between mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, provide Armenia with reciprocal connectivity benefits, and deepen Türkiye’s East-West connectivity. However, these opportunities can be realized only through a governance framework that combines unimpeded connectivity with respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity, and jurisdiction, transparent institutional arrangements, regional coordination, local support along the route and equitable socioeconomic benefit-sharing.

🔖

Cite This Article

Parpiyev, S., Yermekbayev, A., Ilyas, N. (2026). THE VIABILITY AND FEASIBILITY OF TRIPP IN THE MIDDLE CORRIDOR: OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS. Eurasian Research Journal, Volume: 8 Issue: 3. https://ajindex.com/articles/1483091

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (34)

  1. Agnew, J. A. (2018). *Globalization and sovereignty: Beyond the territorial trap* (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield.
  2. Aliye, S. (2024). Zangezur Corridor: Realities and perspectives for Nakhchivan’s economy. *International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Social Science, 4*(44), 3137. https://doi.org/10.31435/ijitss.4(44).2024.3137
  3. Arvak. (2025, December 27). *Strategiya Gruzii v usloviyakh realizatsii proekta TRIPP* [Georgia’s strategy under the implementation of the TRIPP project]. https://arvak.am/ru/стратегия-грузии-в-условиях-реализац/
  4. Ateş, E. (2025). The potential effects of the Zangezur Corridor on Türkiye’s foreign trade. *Gazi İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi, 11*(2), 148–161. https://doi.org/10.30855/gjeb.2025.11.2.004
  5. Azizova, N. (2026, April 8). *TRIPP and Anaklia: The new architecture of logistics in the South Caucasus*. Institute for Development and Diplomacy, ADA University. https://idd.az/media/2026/04/08/idd_policy_brief_-_azizova_-_8_april_2026.pdf?v=1.1
  6. Bildik, M. (2025). *Zangezur Corridor: A strategic pivot in the South Caucasus geopolitics*. Academia.edu. https://www.academia.edu/143350683/Zangezur_Corridor_A_Strategic_Pivot_in_the_South_Caucasus_Geopolitics
  7. Chedia, A. R. (2024). Zangezur Corridor: Economic potential and political constraints. *Russia in Global Affairs, 22*(1), 194–216. https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/194-216.pdf
  8. Claessen, K. (2026, January 7). *Connectivity and competition in the South Caucasus: Geography as a source of power*. International Centre for Defence and Security. https://icds.ee/static/icds_analysis_connectivity_and_competition_in_the_south_caucasus_koen_claessen_january_2026.pdf
  9. Conradi, F. (2026, April 29). *The much-touted Middle Corridor transport route could prove a dead end*. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2026/04/middle-corridor-transport-prospect
  10. Cutler, R. M. (2026, February 13). *TRIPP and the Middle Corridor after Vance*. The Times of Central Asia. https://timesca.com/tripp-and-the-middle-corridor-after-vance/
  11. de Waal, T., Kochinyan, A., & Shiriyev, Z. (2026, April 1). *Rewiring the South Caucasus: TRIPP and the new geopolitics of connectivity*. Carnegie Europe. https://carnegieendowment.org/europe/research/2026/03/rewiring-the-south-caucasus-tripp-and-the-new-geopolitics-of-connectivity
  12. Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). *Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition*. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107050891
  13. Gafarli, S., Mammadov, A., Mammadli, Y., Huseynov, F., & Nesirov, I. (2026). *TRIPP/Zangezur Corridor: Strategic link for trade, transit, and regional growth*. Center of Analysis of International Relations. https://aircenter.az/uploads/l9OsqVEPJB8H.pdf
  14. Gawliczek, P., & Iskandarov, K. (2023). The Zangezur Corridor as part of the global transport route: Against the backdrop of power games in the South Caucasus region. *Security and Defence Quarterly, 41*(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.35467/sdq/161993
  15. Hashimov, E., Talibov, A., & Iskandarov, K. (2025). The socioeconomic impact of the Zangezur Corridor on the South Caucasus region. *Social Development and Security, 15*(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2025.15.4.1
  16. Kininmonth, R. (2026, April 22). *Armenia seeks global co-investors for US-backed TRIPP peace corridor*. Caucasus Business Journal. https://caucasusbusinessjournal.com/news/armenia-seeks-investors-tripp-corridor-syunik-2026
  17. Kocharyan, H. (2026). *The constitutional crisis in the Republic of Armenia through the lenses of the territorial changes: The legal challenges of Zangezur Corridor* [Preprint]. figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31882015.v1
  18. Kroon, F. (2026, February). *From the Global Gateway to the TRIPP: How the EU is navigating regional connectivity in the South Caucasus*. The Hague Research Institute. https://hagueresearch.org/from-the-global-gateway-to-the-tripp-how-the-eu-is-navigating-regional-connectivity-in-the-south-caucasus/
  19. Kuus, M. (2014). *Geopolitics and expertise: Knowledge and authority in European diplomacy*. Wiley-Blackwell.
  20. Luciani, L. (2026). *What the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity means for the South Caucasus and for the people living there* (GIES Occasional Paper No. 6, One Year Trump series). Ghent Institute for International and European Studies. http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-01KFBCG47CMV48BHRCKBGBKP88
  21. Nan, H. (2025, August 12). *America’s new South Caucasus corridor: Stakes for China, Russia, and beyond*. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2025/08/americas-new-south-caucasus-corridor-stakes-for-china-russia-and-beyond/
  22. Ordukhanyan, E., & Ananyan, G. (2026). The “TRIPP” as a stabilizing factor in the South Caucasus? Opportunities and challenges. *POLITNOMOS: Journal of Political and Legal Studies, 5*(1), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.54503/2953-8165-2026.5(1)-45
  23. Ó Tuathail, G. (1996). *Critical geopolitics: The politics of writing global space*. Routledge.
  24. Papava, V. (2025). *The Middle and Zangezur Corridors: Alternatives, or mutually complementary?* CORE Academy. https://www.coreacad.org/upload/file/20250914/638.934.0983450.501.816257595.pdf
  25. Renn, O. (2008). *Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world*. Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6799-0
  26. Sabanadze, N. (2025, November 8). *From multilateralism to transactional peace: How TRIPP is redefining the South Caucasus*. Geopolitics. https://politicsgeo.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/How-TRIPP-is-Redefining-the-South-Caucasus-Natalie-Sabanadze.pdf
  27. Saçan, A. B. (2025). *Geostrategic analysis of the Zangezur Corridor: Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia*. CESD Press. https://www.cesd.az/y/panel/uploads/107.642.79256-CESDPaperGeostrategicAnalysisofZangezurCorridor.pdf
  28. Safaryan, S. (2026). *Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity and Armenia’s “Crossroads of Peace” initiative: Regional implications and challenges*. Eastern European Centre for Multiparty Democracy. https://eecmd.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/TRIPP-Route-and-Armenias-Crossroads-to-Peace-.pdf
  29. Sarian, A. J. (2025, July 26). *Zangezur at the crossroads: Western endorsement, legal sovereignty, and the geopolitical contest for Armenia’s southern corridor*. Medium. https://medium.com/@sarianaraj/zangezur-at-the-crossroads-59301c8a2245
  30. Slovic, P. (2000). *The perception of risk*. Earthscan. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315661773
  31. Talishinsky, E. B., Aliyev, Z. B. O., Jafarov, E. A. O., & Orujov, I. Y. O. (2026). The Zangezur Corridor: Cultural, information and economic integration and regional opportunities. *Veredas do Direito, 23*, 5332. https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.5332
  32. Tkemaladze, J. (2026). The Caucasian crossroads. *Longevity Horizon, 2*(5). https://doi.org/10.65649/y8kh3543
  33. Tshughuryan, S., & Meliqyan, L. (2026). The possibilities and socio-economic risks assessment for implementation of TRIPP. *Hyusisapayl, 1*(16). https://northern.am/hy/hyusisapayl/the-possibilities-and-socio-economic-risks-assessment-for-implementation-of-tripp/
  34. Veliyev, C. (2022, September 23). Iran’s frustrations with the Zangezur Corridor. *Eurasia Daily Monitor, 19*(140). https://jamestown.org/program/irans-frustrations-with-the-zangezur-corridor/