The Armenian Gambit: How Western 'Peace' Risks Creating a Neo-Colonial Protectorate in the South Caucasus

Introduction: The Illusion of Closure

The handshake between Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and President Ilham Aliyev at the August 2025 Washington Summit was crafted for global media consumption, projecting an image of resolution to a conflict that has long festered in the South Caucasus. Yet, behind this carefully staged diplomacy lies a brutal truth: Armenia currently navigates the most opaque and perilous security landscape of any post-Soviet state. The formal cessation of hostilities has not brought genuine closure or clarity to Yerevan; instead, it has inaugurated a dangerous new chapter where traditional security guarantees have evaporated while alternative arrangements remain speculative at best. This precarious situation stems directly from a peace process engineered by Western powers, particularly the United States, which prioritizes strategic and economic interests over genuine sovereignty for smaller nations.

The TRIPP Corridor: Economic Oxygen with Strings Attached

The centerpiece of the U.S.-brokered peace is the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), codified in the January 15, 2026 Implementation Framework. This 42-kilometer multimodal transit link through Syunik province is presented as a panacea that will unblock regional trade and resuscitate Armenia’s stagnant economy by integrating it into the Middle Corridor bypassing Russia and Iran. On the surface, this appears to be a rational economic development strategy. However, the devilish detail lies in the management structure: a U.S.-led consortium now controls this critical infrastructure, effectively placing a Western commercial ‘tripwire’ on Armenian soil. What is marketed as ‘peace through prosperity’ reveals itself as a sophisticated mechanism of neo-colonial control, where economic dependency becomes the foundation for political influence.

Yerevan has essentially traded territorial autonomy for a seat at a table where the rules are increasingly transactional—a familiar pattern wherein Global South nations are compelled to surrender elements of their sovereignty under the guise of economic partnership. This arrangement becomes particularly dangerous as Armenia undertakes a ‘quiet quit’ from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), leaving the nation de facto without a military protector for the first time in a century. The bitter irony is that the peace agreement, rather than enhancing Armenia’s security, has created new vulnerabilities that Western powers are poised to exploit.

NATO’s Hollow Promises and Internal Contradictions

Around 2023, NATO began viewing Armenia with increasing interest, seeing geographic benefits similar to Georgia but without immediate Russia-linked territorial disputes. French President Emmanuel Macron appeared positioned to shepherd Armenia into preliminary partnership frameworks. However, by January 2026, NATO faces a profound crisis of self-conception that makes meaningful expansion virtually unthinkable. The alliance is torn between two competing priorities: the ongoing war in Ukraine and the resurfacing dispute over Greenland, which Secretary General Mark Rutte warned at Davos threatens to ‘drop the ball’ on Ukraine.

The Greenland Crisis has inadvertently introduced a logic of ‘coercive bargaining’ within NATO that blatantly contradicts the alliance’s core principle of respect for sovereignty. When the most powerful alliance member can pressure a founding member like Denmark over territorial issues, what security guarantees can realistically be extended to a nation in the South Caucasus? For Armenia, NATO’s ‘Open Door’ policy looks less like an entrance to protection and more like an admission to a legal battleground where larger powers settle their scores at the expense of smaller nations’ interests.

Despite these contradictions, NATO has pursued institutional engagement with Armenia with unusual speed following the Washington Summit. The December 18, 2025 visit of NATO’s Deputy Secretary General Radmila Shekerinska, who hailed Armenia as a vital partner for Black Sea stability, symbolized this courtship. The 2026 Defence Cooperation Plan, signed in Paris on December 16, 2025, represents a deliberate strategic pivot from Russian defense dependence, exemplified by France providing 36 CAESAR 155mm self-propelled howitzers and Thales GM200 multi-mission radars to replace Soviet-era systems.

Russian Ambassador Sergey Kopyrkin rightly viewed these developments as a ‘second front’ against Moscow, warning against the ‘Ukrainisation’ of the South Caucasus. This militarization, rather than enhancing regional stability, risks turning Armenia into a proxy battlefield where great powers pursue their rivalry at the expense of Armenian sovereignty and safety.

Western Distraction and the Peril of Strategic Neglect

The fundamental problem for Armenia is that its Western suitors are fundamentally distracted by internal crises and competing priorities. President Trump’s January 21 Davos reversal on Greenland tariffs provided temporary market relief but cannot paper over the structural fractures exposed by the Greenland Crisis. European leaders find themselves in a posture of ‘strategic supplication,’ balancing the necessity of keeping Washington engaged in Ukraine against the threat of territorial coercion in the Arctic.

In this environment, Armenia courts a security guarantor that cannot focus on its needs. Yerevan effectively attempts to board a European life raft that is itself too battered by transatlantic storms to determine whether it can return to the mothership or must seek independent survival. This reality check demands that Armenia abandon illusions about Western reliability and embrace a more pragmatic approach to its security dilemma.

The Path Forward: From Alignment to Strategic Multi-Alignment

The only viable path for Armenia lies in shifting from a policy of ‘alignment’ to one of strategic multi-alignment. This requires Yerevan to understand the cards it actually holds rather than wishing for a better hand. Armenia cannot seek shelter where meaningful protection does not exist. Instead, it must leverage its geographic position and economic potential to make itself indispensable to multiple stakeholders.

The TRIPP corridor, while problematic in its current management structure, represents a potential security asset by forcing international stakeholders to maintain a vested interest in Armenian stability for commercial reasons. This is not perfect leverage, but it provides a foundation upon which to build a more independent foreign policy. History offers a compelling blueprint for this approach in the ‘Siam Strategy’ of the late 19th century. Like Armenia today, the Kingdom of Siam found itself caught between British and French imperial ambitions but survived by transforming itself into a vital, neutral trade buffer that both empires relied upon. This enabled Siam to maintain independence while neighbors fell to colonization.

For Armenia, the future cannot be as an unequal partner or occasional Western afterthought. The nation must lean into the cold logic of making itself too economically valuable to be ignored or bullied. Its geographic utility must be leveraged carefully to avoid invoking new conflicts or reviving dormant ones. In an era where Western mission coherence is collapsing under the weight of internal contradictions and administrative instability, Armenia must learn to stand on its own feet and navigate whatever terrain it ultimately must traverse.

Conclusion: Sovereignty Through Strategic Independence

The Armenian predicament exemplifies the broader challenge facing Global South nations in the contemporary geopolitical landscape. Western-engineered solutions often come with invisible strings that compromise sovereignty while offering inadequate security guarantees. The tragic irony is that the peace process intended to resolve conflict has created new dependencies and vulnerabilities that may ultimately undermine Armenia’s long-term stability.

Armenia’s experience serves as a cautionary tale for nations navigating between competing power centers. The solution lies not in choosing sides but in developing the strategic autonomy to engage with multiple partners on equitable terms. By leveraging its geographic position, economic potential, and diplomatic skill, Armenia can transform itself from a pawn in great power games to an independent actor capable of safeguarding its interests.

The West’s failure to provide coherent leadership or reliable partnership creates both danger and opportunity for nations like Armenia. The danger lies in being caught in the crossfire of Western internal conflicts; the opportunity emerges from the necessity of developing indigenous capacity for strategic independence. For Armenia, and indeed for all nations of the Global South, the path to true sovereignty runs through self-reliance, strategic multi-alignment, and the wisdom to recognize that protection offered by distant powers often comes at the price of freedom.