Barack Obama has one. So do Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter. And it seems abundantly clear that Donald Trump is bucking for one too – a Nobel Peace Prize awarded to a sitting US president.
Trump has gone on a peace-making offensive over the past few weeks. He is not only the driving force in trying to end Russia’s unprovoked war on Ukraine, but he is also at the center of efforts to settle the almost four-decade-long conflict in the Caucasus between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Success in both cases is far from certain.
The US president met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on August 18 at the White House, along with European leaders. The meeting followed Trump's talks with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska on August 15, during which the US president aligned his approach with his Russian counterpart, abandoning a call for an immediate ceasefire as a prelude to peace talks.
Press pundits described the Alaska gathering as a clear “win” for Putin. But that may not end up being the case, given that the Russian leader in Alaska acceded to the idea of Ukraine receiving security guarantees from the United States and Europe as part of any peace settlement. Trump also acknowledged the need for US participation in providing a security guarantee. Ultimately, it will be the scope and fulfillment of any security guarantee that will be a determining factor in judging the Alaska outcome and the peace process in general.
A European statement issued after the Alaska meeting emphasized that Ukraine must receive an “ironclad” security commitment. “The Coalition of the Willing is ready to play an active role. No limitations should be placed on Ukraine’s armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries. Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine‘s pathway to EU and NATO,” the statement read.
US Special Envoy for Peace Missions Steve Witkoff said August 17 that Ukraine could end up receiving a NATO Article 5-like assurance, under which a renewed attack on the country would potentially require all NATO members to come to Kyiv’s defense.
While Ukraine would likely welcome such a guarantee, as it is a key driver of Kyiv’s desire to obtain NATO membership, there are still risks attached to any such arrangement for Zelensky. An open question would be: how determined are the United States and Europe to fulfill their security commitments?
In agreeing to a security guarantee for Ukraine, Putin may be playing a long game, recalling the experience of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, under which the United States, Russia, and European powers provided a security guarantee to Ukraine, in return for Kyiv giving up its nuclear weapons. In 2014, Russia violated the memorandum’s provisions by occupying Crimea. Meanwhile, the Obama administration, along with European states, did nothing in response to Russian aggression.
Russia also presents a major obstacle to Trump’s provisional peace plan for the Caucasus, a central component of which is the establishment of a transit corridor across Armenian territory connecting Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan exclave, with operations managed by US entities. Operational details remain to be worked out for the corridor, which has been dubbed the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP).
The Kremlin and Iran are suspicious of the US-managed corridor concept. Many Russian experts see TRIPP as a potential geopolitical disaster for Moscow. Political scientist Semyon Baghdasarov, in an analysis published by the Russian outlet Military Affairs, predicted an American military base would eventually be established in Armenia, and that Yerevan would close an existing Russian base in the country.
“A powerful American-Turkish bridgehead is appearing near the borders of Russia. It’s a very unpromising scenario,” Baghdasarov said. He cautioned that TRIPP could set off a military confrontation in Armenia that is worse than Ukraine.
Meanwhile, Alexander Dugin, a Russian nationalist ideologist who has been described as Putin’s “imperial id,” called Trump’s peace initiative a “humiliation” and an existential threat to Russian national identity.
“This pain, this insult must be perceived as a slap in the face to each of us, to every Russian person,” Dugin said, referring to the August 8 joint declaration witnessed by Trump and signed by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani leader Ilham Aliyev. “If we do not see this as a failure, if we do not feel this pain, we will cease to be human beings and to be a sovereign state-civilization.”
In the days since the White House signing ceremony, Armenia has gone on a diplomatic charm offensive to reassure Russian and Iranian officials, achieving mixed results. Russia remains wary, but Yerevan appears to have succeeded in soothing some Iranian concerns. Iran’s chief worries about TRIPP are that it will disrupt Tehran’s essential and lucrative North-South trade and that the corridor could potentially be used for military purposes by the United States.
In an interview published by the official Iranian news agency IRNA, Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Vahan Kostanyan contended that TRIPP would be economically beneficial for Tehran, saying “this will open new doors for railway cooperation between Armenia and Iran,” adding that it would expand access for Iranian goods to the Black Sea.”
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian headed to Yerevan on August 18 for TRIPP-focused talks. Prior to his departure, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi published a commentary in the Armenpress news agency describing the presidential visit as “an affirmation of our shared commitment to opening new horizons in mutual relations.”
While Iranian officials may feel more comfortable that existing trade patterns will not be disrupted, Tehran remains cautious about the looming US presence in the region. On August 15, Araghchi noted that Tehran “maintains a special focus on preserving regional geopolitical stability and its national interests,” code for minimizing US influence in the region.
Iranian and Russian officials have held talks aimed at harmonizing their stances on TRIPP with uncertain results, as each state is still formulating its own position.
Given that his name is attached to the chief pillar of the peace plan, Trump is likely to remain closely engaged in the process and in overcoming any potential Russian and Iranian opposition. When asked on August 12 to comment about potential Russian and/or Iranian efforts to scuttle TRIPP, State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce declined to outline specific US options but stressed that “the world knows to take President Trump seriously. This arrangement, this deal, is important to him. This matters to this administration.”
By Eurasianet
Related Stories
