Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―Frontiers of Global Knowledge‖ (July 20-22, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. – Geneva, Switzerland, 2026. - 122 p.

7 energy transit country [5]. More specifically, this has negatively affected the interests of Russia and Iran, as it has allowed competing transport and energy projects to emerge under the control of other countries. Moreover, these concerns are exacerbated by the demographic and geopolitical contexts, as Iran has a large ethnic Azerbaijani population (15–20 million [6]). Most of the countries bordering Russia in Central Asia are populated primarily by Turkic speakers. The above explains why Iran and Russia pay special attention to infrastructure projects that can increase Turkey‘s influence on politics, economics, energy, and strategy throughout the region. Therefore, this is a very delicate environment, where any change in Armenian-Turkish relations will have far-reaching consequences beyond the bilateral level. However, for Armenia, the normalization of relations with Turkey implies not only commercial and economic benefits. Literature Review In accordance with the purpose of this study, the literature review is presented in two groups of sources: studies on the reopening of the Armenian-Turkish border and studies related to TRIPP. Although TRIPP has recently appeared in the academic-political arena, the issue of reopening the Armenian-Turkish border has been discussed for about 30 years. Meanwhile, Mr. T. Grigoryan, a political analyst on the topic of TRIPP, in an interview with CivilNet, noted all the possible positive aspects and risks that should be taken into account when implementing the idea, since the ideas expressed in the agreement are not reciprocal. Although the proposed front office/back office mechanism can be viewed as an innovative way to respond to Azerbaijan‘s demands, which does not require direct interaction between Armenian border guards and Azerbaijani citizens traveling to Nakhichevan, Grigoryan emphasizes that Armenian tourists traveling through the territory of Azerbaijan are not covered by the same waiver. There may be disputes over the scope of Armenian functions and other aspects of border and customs control within this model, especially as Baku exerts pressure on the Armenian authorities. According to Grigoryan, although the project is presented as a diplomatic breakthrough by Armenian officials, experts and civil society groups that contributes to Armenia becoming an independent actor in the region, it should be noted that according to the published framework, TRIPP has a monopoly on doing business in the territory and can dominate this sector with its 74% share. He also notes that immediately after September 2023, Azerbaijan began building its own side, while Turkey began building a railway connecting Kars and Nakhichevan. Thus, TRIPP can be viewed not as an infrastructure project, but as part of rapidly changing regional strategies. Grigoryan also discusses the Russian alternative, which involves the involvement of Russian security forces in controlling the routes, but this approach was only viable when Nagorno-Karabakh was still inhabited by Armenians, since Russian influence in southern Armenia would be neutralized by the presence of Russian forces in Nagorno-Karabakh. However, in today‘s conditions, this countervailing factor does not exist, and therefore any increased control by Russian security forces along the Meghri route cannot be justified strategically. Thus, Grigoryan concludes that TRIPP may not be the worst option available to Armenia, despite the fact that it is in reality more of a political message than a practical agreement [7]. Moreover, TRIPP is surrounded by a broader debate that includes more hopeful interpretations than realistic economic and political assessments, as it comes mainly from the West and Turkey, both of which benefit from cheaper supplies of raw materials. For example, Joseph Epstein, director of the Turan Research Center and senior fellow at the Yorktown Institute, and Andrew D'Anieri, deputy director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasian Center, note that more active American diplomacy in the South Caucasus could create economic benefits and new opportunities for American companies. They believe that Armenia could use TRIPP to obtain investments for its infrastructure projects within the framework of the "Crossroads of Peace" initiative, thus becoming a regional transportation hub. The authors also argue that since Western countries believe that the TRIPP agreement could have additional benefits, this initiative will become an alternative shipping route to Asia, bypassing Russia and thus reducing the costs and time spent on the supply of goods and important primary goods from Central Asia. Epstein and D'Anieri also point out certain threats. They note that the South Caucasus has already become an important route for sanctions against Russia and Iran. Thus, any unforeseen changes in the level of willingness to move goods through these countries would create risks for TRIPP and reduce its attractiveness or strategic sense. [8] Thus, the results and risks of the project are still assessed only from the point of view of Western interests. Laura Luciani, a researcher at the Institute of International and European Studies at Ghent University, also expresses an optimistic opinion. He speaks in a more nuanced tone (but, as Laura notes, it is important to consider TRIPP against the backdrop of political shifts in the South Caucasus). Azerbaijan‘s recent territorial gains since the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and Russia‘s invasion of Ukraine have affected the dynamics of the region, increasing Azerbaijan‘s confidence in its foreign policy and