Eurasia’s Future
New Dynamics in the South Caucasus after the US Election

Regarding US politics, Europe’s position has historically seemed clear, seeking to avoid engagement with Trump in order to secure more controllable and stable factors for European-Atlantic integration and address key issues such as the Ukraine crisis. For nations beyond the United States and Europe, the distinctions between the two are often perceived as less significant than their shared characteristics, given their common identification as part of the Western world, writes Shi Jing, Assistant Professor at the Institute for International and Area Studies, Tsinghua University.

Prior to the November 2024 US presidential election, observers of Caucasian politics increasingly turned their attention to the potential implications of the election for the region. The timing is particularly notable, as Georgia, a key US partner in the region, was also holding parliamentary elections that stood to determine the country’s future trajectory. Concurrently, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, along with their future relations, could be reshaped within a new international political framework following Donald Trump’s victory. Given the region’s proximity to critical US interests, such as Russia and Iran, and the high sensitivity of Caucasian states to the policies of major powers, coupled with the ongoing volatility in the regional landscape, it is essential to analyse the latest developments from an internal, regional perspective.

In contrast to other regions and countries, the Caucasus may not be a primary focus within the broader scope of US global strategy. However, the Caucasus region plays a significant role that reflects its unique characteristics. Notably, there exists a distinct “asymmetry” in the relationships between the great powers and the Caucasian states, meaning that varying perspectives on the same set of relations can yield different interpretations based on the angle from which they are approached. Indeed, international relations are often viewed through the lens of great powers, but this perspective can lead to an overemphasis on the power dynamics and strategies of these larger states, potentially overshadowing more nuanced issues that are of particular concern to smaller nations within the region. In light of the current post-US election situation, many potential factors and trends that will influence future policies and bilateral relations are beginning to emerge and take effect. Therefore, analysing the positions and concerns of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia separately will be helpful in capturing the nuances of the regional dynamics and identifying key clues related to potential changes.

Wider Eurasia
Azerbaijan – Armenia: Can the South Caucasus Become a Region of Peace?
Andrei Areshev
The multidirectional geopolitical interests of regional and external players, which directly influence the difficult socio-political transformations in the region, keep us from being optimistic about the rapid transformation of the South Caucasus into a zone of peace – even if some document on the normalisation of relations between Baku and Yerevan has formally acquired legal status, Andrei Areshev writes.
Opinions


Azerbaijan

The Azerbaijani leadership has shown a greater preference for a Trump victory, a stance that can be corroborated by some of his statements prior to the US election. While Trump’s policy style is often considered unpredictable, the foreign policy characteristics of his first term offer some reference points. Notably, the Trump administration’s relative de-emphasis on human rights and democracy issues aligns with the expectations of Azerbaijan’s leadership, fostering a stable and positive bilateral relationship while providing Azerbaijan with greater strategic flexibility. Moreover, Azerbaijan’s post-independence foreign policy has developed distinctive characteristics, balancing multiple alliances while prioritising domestic stability and related objectives. This approach, in certain respects, mirrors Trump’s focus on national interests, making it more likely that Azerbaijani President Aliyev will have higher expectations for a second Trump term, particularly in terms of leveraging high-level and stable US-Azerbaijan relations to advance Azerbaijan’s regional interests.

Following Trump’s victory, Azerbaijan emphasised its commitment to the comprehensive development of its relationship with the United States and expressed hopes for a further deepening of bilateral cooperation. The message specifically highlighted key issues such as addressing global challenges and terrorism as well as ensuring European energy security, and it underscored Trump’s support for Azerbaijan’s energy strategy. This not only reflected Azerbaijan’s concerns regarding areas of cooperation but also foreshadowed the focus of future collaboration over the next four years. Although Azerbaijan currently holds an advantageous position in regional conflicts, it remains highly attentive to the security situation in the region. At the same time, President Aliyev reaffirmed Azerbaijan’s commitment to maintaining peace and security in the South Caucasus, emphasising its stabilising role in the regional order and its expectations for multilateral cooperation.

Armenia

Following the announcement of the US election results, Armenia responded promptly. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan sent his congratulations to President Trump, emphasising that the bilateral strategic relationship between Armenia and the United States is based on shared values, policy priorities, and interests. On November 16, Pashinyan held a phone call with President-elect Trump. Although the official statement was brief, it was revealed that the discussion focused on bilateral relations and regional issues, reflecting Armenia’s concerns and its expectations for cooperation during Trump’s second term.

The outbreak of the second Nagorno-Karabakh war in the second half of 2020 occurred during the later stages of the Trump administration, which had limited involvement in addressing the issue. During the subsequent Biden administration, US attention to the South Caucasus region and regional developments remained relatively stable. In terms of overall US foreign strategy, policies related to the Ukraine issue clearly took precedence. However, for Armenia, which faced significant changes in the post-Nagorno-Karabakh war landscape, securing stronger support from the United States and the West has become a core strategic demand.

Given the profound changes in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue and regional security dynamics since 2020, Armenia’s expectations regarding US policy and bilateral relations have become increasingly specific, particularly in seeking substantive support on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Additionally, Yerevan hopes to build deeper trust and cooperation with the United States in a passive geopolitical environment as a new strategy. This expectation not only pertains to its current predicament but also reflects Armenia’s long-term positioning within the regional order.

Georgia

The situation in Georgia is currently especially complicated. The results of the parliamentary elections in late October 2024 triggered strong domestic opposition. Following the election results, Western countries expressed negative views, focusing mainly on technical issues and concerns over Georgia’s growing “Russification”. These criticisms reflect an increasing gap between Georgia’s political realities and its goal of European-Atlantic integration. Against this backdrop, after Trump’s victory in the US election, Georgia’s leadership quickly extended its congratulations, emphasising the importance of the strategic relationship and cooperation between the two countries. The ruling party, Georgian Dream, expressed strong approval of Trump’s victory, viewing Republican leadership as an opportunity to reset bilateral relations and seeing Trump’s success as symbolic of the triumph of peace and traditional values. This response not only reaffirms the current strategic relationship between the US and Georgia but also signals expectations for deepened cooperation, particularly in maintaining regional stability and advancing the national strategic agenda.

Although Georgian Dream claims to remain committed to Georgia’s European aspirations, its governance style in recent years and emphasis on traditional values have increasingly deviated from the “European values’ framework. This shift has created tension between Georgia’s political trajectory and Europe’s predefined path. In announcing the suspension of EU accession talks, Prime Minister Kobakhidze stressed that while EU membership remains Georgia’s priority for 2030, the process would only continue on the condition that Georgia could preserve its “dignity”.

Regarding US politics, Europe’s position has historically seemed clearer, seeking to avoid engagement with Trump in order to secure more controllable and stable factors for European-Atlantic integration and address key issues such as the Ukraine crisis. For nations beyond the United States and Europe, the distinctions between the two are often perceived as less significant than their shared characteristics, given their common identification as part of the Western world. In the current context, however, the values and governing philosophy of Georgian Dream may be closer to the Trump administration’s approach. This convergence, however, should not be interpreted as an indication of the United States or Europe fully endorsing Georgia’s political trajectory. Instead, it reflects the potential for a relatively tempered approach on specific value-oriented issues.

The Return of Diplomacy?
Georgia on a Small Chessboard: Geopolitics and Self-Awareness
Archil Sikharulidze
What is happening in Georgia in the wake of the 2024 parliamentary elections, which the local opposition has refused to recognise and the West has found fault with? Why did the country turn from a “beacon of freedom” into a problem for Western geopolitics? How did the “historic elections” that were supposed to answer the question “with Europe or with Russia” turn into an ideological defeat for radical pro-Westernism in the country?
Opinions
Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.