News.Az presents an interview with Arno Khidirbegishvili, General Director and Editor-in-Chief of the Georgian information and analysis agency GRUZINFORM, and Director of the Center for Security, Strategic Analysis and Information Policy.

– How successful could the Trump administration's efforts be in resolving the conflicts in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, as well as in achieving long-term peace in the South Caucasus?

 – The Donald Trump administration is actively engaged in resolving two key military conflicts — in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip. Washington's actions are characterized by a willingness to pursue intensive diplomatic dialogue with both Moscow and Tel Aviv. The formation of a competent team capable of effectively responding to the challenges of international politics underscores the White House’s intention to strengthen its global position.

 Regarding the Ukrainian crisis, Trump’s approach is based on a pragmatic assessment of the interests of all involved parties, helping create conditions for constructive dialogue. The U.S. administration demonstrates flexibility that allows it to take into account the strategic interests of both Ukraine and Russia, avoiding a sharp escalation of confrontation while continuing to support Kyiv.

In the case of Gaza, Washington views the situation through the lens of ensuring Israel’s security and stabilizing the region. The U.S. commitment to this issue reflects its dedication to long-term strategic interests that extend beyond the Middle East and touch on global security.

However, despite progress such as temporary ceasefires, prisoner exchanges, and the partial release of hostages, the results achieved so far represent tactical successes. The core causes of these conflicts remain unresolved, complicating the transition toward sustainable peace. The search for compromises that can satisfy all sides is fraught with numerous difficulties, including both objective contradictions and subjective factors.

Against the backdrop of active U.S. diplomacy, the European Union appears increasingly fragmented and lacking a unified strategic vision. Bureaucratic procedures, the absence of a coordinated approach, and an inability to offer effective mechanisms for conflict resolution have weakened Europe’s influence on developments. Despite NATO’s efforts, the support extended to Ukraine has yet to result in the achievement of strategic objectives.

Meanwhile, the South Caucasus remains a crucial region on the international agenda. Having recently seen the end of a decades-long conflict in Karabakh, it stands as an example of conflict resolution where a clear recognition of objective realities allowed for stabilization in a relatively short time. The experience of the South Caucasus emphasizes the importance of addressing the root causes of conflict as a prerequisite for sustainable peace. In this context, Azerbaijan’s role as a key actor in the region and its ability to integrate international peacebuilding efforts is becoming increasingly important.

The Trump administration, in this light, seeks to consolidate its position by offering alternative mechanisms for conflict resolution — particularly in regions where Europe has shown passivity. An attempt to establish dialogue with Moscow and Tel Aviv, informed by the Karabakh experience, may be seen as a strategy aimed at achieving long-term and sustainable solutions that enhance global security and stability.

– What are the real goals of the Trump administration in the South Caucasus?

– As one of the world’s leading powers, the United States continues to advance its geopolitical and economic interests in its relations with Ukraine, Europe, and the South Caucasus. Trump aims to reinforce the U.S. position on the global stage by focusing on economic prosperity and national prestige.

The situation in Ukraine remains one of the most complex challenges for U.S. foreign policy. Unlike Biden, Trump views the Ukrainian crisis through the lens of economic efficiency, seeking to minimize costs while gaining strategic benefits. His pragmatic approach involves negotiating with Russia, which retains military superiority on the battlefield. A key priority is securing access to rare earth metals and other strategically significant resources. Conflict resolution is seen as a means of offsetting costs and bolstering U.S. regional influence.

Relations with European countries — particularly France and Germany — are complicated by disagreements over support for Ukraine and NATO funding. Washington views the insufficient contribution of European allies to collective security as an unfair burden-sharing.

At the same time, Europe is using the Ukraine conflict as a tool to weaken Russia, prompting U.S. concerns about its willingness to act within a shared security framework.

Against this backdrop, the South Caucasus is gaining strategic importance. Control over transport corridors, energy routes, and access to resources in this region is crucial for both the U.S. and its allies. Washington aims to strengthen its foothold in the South Caucasus, recognizing Azerbaijan’s growing role in ensuring Europe’s energy security and regional stability. Cooperation with Baku is seen as a means to counterbalance Russian and Iranian influence and to secure reliable access to energy supplies and transit infrastructure.

– What factors are shaping the emergence of a new security architecture in the South Caucasus?

– The differences between the U.S., EU, Russia, Türkiye, and Iran are shaping a complex geopolitical landscape that directly impacts stability in the South Caucasus and has broader international consequences. These contradictions create a multi-layered conflict of interest structure, covering both direct and indirect spheres of influence.

The destabilizing factors currently intensifying have deep roots. Post-Soviet Ukraine began transforming into a hub for criminal networks from former Soviet republics well before 2014, including Georgian criminal groups and Russian and Georgian crime bosses. Due to weak state control, Ukraine became a transit zone where cargo trailers carrying millions of dollars’ worth of goods bound for Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and other countries would vanish without a trace. Criminal activity in this zone resulted in both economic losses and human casualties among Georgian transporters.

Today, Russia, engaged in difficult negotiations with the U.S., is trying to avoid firmly committing to any position on the Middle East. Meanwhile, Türkiye is leveraging the situation to expand its influence — from Syria to Palestine, from Abkhazia to Ukraine. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is vigorously advancing Turkish national interests, which often conflict with the positions of both Moscow and Washington.

Erdoğan also faces internal political challenges, including confrontations with political rivals such as the mayor of Istanbul, which are linked to external pressures and strained relations with Washington. These factors directly or indirectly impact the policies of Azerbaijan, a key Turkish ally that must carefully navigate between the strategic interests of Russia and the U.S.

Also noteworthy is the paradoxical convergence of Turkish and Iranian positions on the Gaza issue. This cooperation has temporarily eased Iran’s previous objections regarding the Zangezur corridor and has facilitated the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Additionally, the diplomatic activism of Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze, who has made repeated visits to both Baku and Yerevan, demonstrates Tbilisi’s willingness to act as a mediator.

However, the most visible changes are unfolding in relations with the European Union. The EU’s growing detachment from real processes in the South Caucasus and its failure to develop a consistent, pragmatic policy has led to disappointment in the region. Despite economic initiatives and political statements, Europe’s influence on regional dynamics is rapidly diminishing.

As European influence wanes, Türkiye and Russia continue to strengthen their positions. In this geopolitical competition, Azerbaijan — like other countries in the region — is forced to strike a balance between strategic partnership with Türkiye, obligations to Russia, and pragmatic cooperation with the U.S. Skillfully navigating among these power centers is essential to ensuring the region’s security and long-term development.

– How does Georgia plan to maintain a balance between its pro-Western course, economic ties with the East, and the need for flexibility in relations with Russia — and can this strategy become the basis for new regional stability?

– It is no secret that Georgia currently finds itself at the heart of a complex and contradictory geopolitical drama playing out in the South Caucasus — a region that has long been an arena of competition among global and regional powers. While officially adhering to a pro-Western course and strategic partnership with the United States, Georgia must balance its Western aspirations with economic interests offered by Eastern and Central Asian states.

Georgia’s push to strengthen economic ties with participants in the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR) highlights its ambition to diversify its external economic relations. Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s visits to China, Iran, the UAE, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Armenia reflect a search for alternative economic pathways amid weakening Georgian-Russian ties and an unpredictable dialogue with the West.

Tbilisi’s "communicating vessels" model is aimed at using partnerships with East and Central Asian countries to maintain indirect channels of communication with Moscow. This approach allows Georgia to retain strategic flexibility and keep doors open for dialogue with Russia, if necessary.

Of particular importance for Tbilisi is the diversification of hydrocarbon sources and the expansion of cooperation with Azerbaijan and Iran. Access to Caspian resources is becoming a key element of energy security. At the same time, the South Caucasus as a whole is increasingly caught up in fierce competition over these resources, further intensifying the question of Georgia’s geopolitical orientation.

Georgia’s political elite seeks to preserve constructive relations with Washington, despite a growing emphasis on pragmatism. While the official pro-Western course remains intact, in practice, economic benefits and regional stability increasingly take precedence. Georgia is trying to leverage its geographic location, transforming it from a vulnerability into a strategic asset.

In an environment of growing turbulence in the South Caucasus, Tbilisi is building an external economic system capable of ensuring long-term resilience. This process is laying the foundation for a new phase of the country’s economic and political development. However, the question remains whether Georgia will be able to preserve this fragile balance — or whether it will face a stark choice between conflicting geopolitical power centers. The outcome remains uncertain, and its resolution will shape the future not only of Georgia but of the entire South Caucasus.

By Abulfaz Babazadeh
26.03.2025