From Corridor to Route: A Neorealist Look at the Transformations in the Geopolitical Dynamics of the South Caucasus

Abstract

This study offers a Neorealist analysis of the Zangezur Corridor and examines its role in geopolitical power dynamics of the South Caucasus. Rather than treating the corridor solely as an economic or transportation initiative, in line with Neorealist paradigm, the analysis situates it within the security‑driven logic of an anarchic international system in which state actors prioritize national interests and survival. As a strategic link between East and West, the corridor affects the regional balance of power, particularly among Armenia and Azerbaijan, while also attracting the attention of broader regional and global actors. The study highlights the importance of military capabilities and territorial control in accounting for state behavior and patterns of interaction surrounding the corridor. From this perspective, the Zangezur Corridor functions not merely as a route of connectivity but as an instrument of power politics through which states seek to enhance security, secure strategic advantages, and limit potential vulnerabilities. The analysis demonstrates that tensions surrounding the corridor stem from competing national interests embedded in structural constraints rather than from isolated policy choices. Accordingly, the article argues that the Zangezur Corridor should be understood as a central site of regional competition with significant implications for future alignments, policies, and the evolving balance of power in the South Caucasus.

Keywords

• Security
• Zangezur Corridor
• Neorealism
• South Caucasus
• The Trump Route

References

1. Alkaramov, T. (2023). Importance of economic corridors as driver of regional integration: South Caucasus and Central Asian context. Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Studies, 6(9), 4640–4644. https://doi.org/10.47191/jefms/v6-i9-56
2. Avdaliani, E. (2025, October 27). Trump’s road TRIPP delivers a deal. Center for European Policy Analysis. https://cepa.org/article/trumps-road-tripp-delivers-a-peace-deal/
3. Aydın, M., & Berdaş, G. (2023). A review on the position of South Caucasus in China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Central Asian Journal of International Relations, 26(4), 7–33. https://doi.org/10.5782/2223-2621.2023.26.4.7
4. Azizi, H., & Isachenko, D. (2023). Turkey–Iran rivalry in the changing geopolitics of the South Caucasus (SWP Comment No. 49). Centre for Applied Turkey Studies. https://doi.org/10.18449/2023C49
5. Biró, D., & Vasa, L. (2024). Unveiling the strategic significance of the Middle Corridor in global trade and geopolitical dynamics. Economy: Strategy and Practice, 19(2), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.51176/1997-9967-2024-2-70-83
6. Byman, D. L., & Pollack, K. M. (2001). Let us now praise great men: Bringing the statesman back in. International Security, 25(4), 107–146. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3092135
7. Chedia, A. R. (2024). Zangezur Corridor: Economic potential and political constraints. Russia in Global Affairs, 22(1), 194–216. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2024-22-1-194-216
8. Civilsdaily. (2025). Places in news: Zangezur Corridor. https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/places-in-news-zangezur-corridor/

9. Dadaşlı, R., & Valiyev, O. (2024). Debating on transport corridors of Azerbaijan in the context of globalization. Universal Journal of History and Culture, 6(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.52613/ujhc.1411712
10. Dadparvar, S., & Kaleji, V. (2023). The Persian Gulf–Black Sea international transport and transit corridor: Goals and constraints. Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 26(2), 203–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/19448953.2023.2233360
11. Dorj, H. (2023). Karabakh conflict and Iran and Turkiyeh strategies. Central Asia and the Caucasus Journal, 29(123), 31–66. https://ca.ipisjournals.ir/article_709947_en.html?lang=fa
12. Edeh, E. C., & Zhao, C. C. (2022). Cultural practices as part of socioeconomic development strategies in One Belt One Road: A conceptual insight. East Asia, 39, 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12140-021-09374-x
13. Erdei, A., & Erdei-Gally, S. (2023). The Baku-Tbilisi-Kars Railway and the Zangezur Corridor: Enhancing regional connectivity. Foreign Policy Review, 16(2), 131–141. https://hiia.hu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/mki_FPR_2023_2_online-2.pdf#page=131
14. Fernando, S., & Jha, P. (2021). Exploring the impacts of economic corridors on South Asian countries. India Quarterly, 77(3), 404–423. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48650546
15. Gawliczek, P., & Iskandarov, K. (2023). The Zangezur Corridor as part of the global transport route: Against the backdrop of power games in the South Caucasus region. Security and Defence Quarterly, 41(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.35467/sdq/161993
16. Gelir, K., & Saygılı, H. (2024). Türk dünyasının boğazındaki ilmiğin hikâyesi: Zengezur Koridoru. Akademik Tarih ve Düşünce Dergisi, 11(4), 2056–2076. https://doi.org/10.46868/atdd.2024.692
17. German, T. (2022). Russia and the South Caucasus: The China challenge. Europe Asia Studies, 74(9), 1596–1615. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2022.2071843
18. Ghahriyan, M., Torosyan, V., & Harutyunyan, A. (2024). Azerbaijan’s power plays: Analyzing Baku’s policy towards Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh after 2020. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 35(5), 747–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2024.2336991
19. Gökbel, A., & Aghaddinli, M. (2022). Karabağ sorunu içerisinde Zengezur’un yeri ve önemi. Kırşehir Ahi Evran Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 7(1), 56–71. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/3014764
20. Golmohammadi, V., & Markedonov, S. (2024). How Iran perceives Turkey’s rise in the South Caucasus. Russia in Global Affairs, 22(1), 152–175. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2024-22-1-152-175
21. Grieco, J. M. (1990). Cooperation among nations: Europe, America, and non tariff barriers to trade. Cornell University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctv3s8p3q
22. Gulahmadov, M., & Hajiyeva, N. (2023). The geopolitical implication of the Zangazur Corridor: A driver for regional advancement and linkage. Agora International Journal of Economical Sciences, 17(2), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.15837/aijes.v17i2.6441
23. Gulahmadov, M., & Huseyn, R. (2023). The Zangazur Corridor as the new haulage hub for integration and cooperation in South Caucasus. Business & IT, 13(1), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.14311/bit.2023.01.14
24. Guliyev, F. (2024). Presidential discourses on regionalism in Azerbaijan: Turkic solidarity and the Silk Road. Nationalities Papers, Advance online publication, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/nps.2024.42
25. Heiran-Nia, J., & Monshipouri, M. (2023). Raisi and Iran's foreign policy toward the South Caucasus. The Muslim World, 113(1–2), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/muwo.12460
26. Hovyan, V. (2023). On the perspectives of Armenian–Azerbaijani peace agreement and some security issues. Amberd Bulletin, 6(25), 78–84. https://doi.org/10.52174/2579-2989_2023.6-79
27. Hutto, J. W. (2024). Power dynamics at the global-regional nexus: Examining structural constraints on regional conflict management. International Politics, 61, 60–82. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-021-00307-2
28. Iskandarov, K. I., Gawliczek, P., & Soboń, A. (2024). Violation of territorial integrity as a tool for waging long term hybrid warfare: Against the backdrop of power games in the South Caucasus region. Security and Defence Quarterly, 45(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.35467/sdq/174507
29. Iskandarov, K., & Gawliczek, P. (2020). The “new great game” in the South Caucasus: Competition for power and influence. Social Development and Security, 10(1), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.33445/sds.2020.10.1.4
30. Ismayilova, V. Z. (2025). The struggle for influence in the South Caucasus after the Second Karabakh War: An analysis of the US strategy against the growing influence of China and Iran. Baltic Journal of Legal and Social Sciences, (2), 173–180. https://doi.org/10.30525/2592-8813-2025-2-21
31. Jabrailov, M. (2025). The Zangezur Corridor and neo imperial confrontations: Azerbaijan’s balancing role. Akademik Tarih ve Düşünce Dergisi, 12(3), 527–535. https://doi.org/10.46868/atdd.2025.949
32. Kapitonenko, M. (2024). How the Russian–Ukrainian war is transforming international system and international order. Actual Problems of International Relations, 158, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.17721/apmv.2024.158.1.26-35
33. Kaya, E., Karakuş, Y., & Onat, G. (2024). Azerbaijan and Turkey’s tourism ties: The role of the Zangezur Corridor. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Issues, 6(1), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.51525/johti.1406400
34. Kitchen, N. (2010). Systemic pressures and domestic ideas: A neoclassical realist model of grand strategy formation. Review of International Studies, 36(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210509990532
35. Kumukov, A., & Luzyanin, S. (2024). China’s foreign policy strategy in the South Caucasus—A transit window to Europe? Russia in Global Affairs, 22(1), 176–193. https://doi.org/10.31278/1810-6374-2024-22-1-176-193
36. Kuszewska, A., & Nitza Makowska, A. (2021). Multifaceted aspects of economic corridors in the context of regional security: The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor as a stabilising and destabilising factor. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 8(2), 218–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/23477970211017719
37. Levy, J. S. (2004). What do great powers balance against and when? In T. V. Paul, J. J. Wirtz, & M. Fortmann (Eds.), Balance of power: Theory and practice in the 21st century (pp. 29–51). Stanford University Press.
38. Lobell, S. E. (2017). Structural realism/offensive and defensive realism. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.304
39. Malikova, Z. (2024). Russia’s South Caucasus policy in the context of geopolitical interests. Georgian Scientists, 6(3), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.52340/gs.2024.06.03.03
40. Mallett, E., & Kitchen, N. (2025). Neoclassical realism, policy paradigms and strategic change: Understanding the US rapprochement to Cuba. International Relations, 39(4), 632–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178231185665
41. Miarka, A. (2021). The 2020 autumn war in Nagorno Karabakh: Course and implications for the strategic balance of power in the South Caucasus region. Asian Affairs, 52, 826–851. https://doi.org/10.1080/03068374.2021.1993050
42. Mustafayev, B., & Sadıgova, N. (2022). Giving Zangezur to Armenians by the Russians in history and recent developments. Turkish Studies, 17(6), 1585–1601. https://doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.64331
43. Ordukhanyan, E., Sukiasyan, H., Shirinyan, L., & Ananyan, G. (2025). A new balance of power in the South Caucasus: How can it lead to regional stability? International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies, 8(2), 206–220. https://doi.org/10.53894/ijirss.v8i2.5138
44. Oztarsu, M. F., & Ibrahimov, R. (2025). Power, proximity and cooperation: Revisiting Turkey’s role in South Caucasus regionalism. Multidisciplinary Science Journal, 8(1), Article 2026105. https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2026105
45. Pourahmadi Meibodi, H., & Feizollahi, M. (2024). The escalation of tension in Nagorno-Karabakh and the challenge of Iran’s regional interests: 2020–2023. Central Eurasia Studies, 16(2), 75–100. https://www.sid.ir/paper/1149045/en
46. Sahakyan, M. (2023). The South Caucasus at the crossroads: Great powers and regional conflict. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4338994
47. Schweller, R. L. (1996). Neorealism’s status quo bias: What security dilemma? Security Studies, 5(3), 90–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636419608429277
48. Schweller, R. L. (2004). Unanswered threats: A neoclassical realist theory of underbalancing. International Security, 29(2), 159–201. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137589
49. Shah, Z. (2025). A realist evaluation of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and its strategic implications for Russia. Journal of Regional Studies Review, 4(1), 526–533. https://doi.org/10.62843/jrsr/2025.4a098
50. Shahin, A. (2024). Zangezur Corridor: Realities and perspectives for Nakhchivan’s economy. International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Social Science, 4(44). https://doi.org/10.31435/ijitss.4(44).2024.3137
51. U.S. Department of State. (2026, January 13). Joint statement on the publication of the U.S.-Armenia implementation framework for the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/01/joint-statement-on-the-publication-of-the-u-s-armenia-implementation-framework-for-the-trump-route-for-international-peace-and-prosperity-tripp/
52. Ullah, A., & Xinlei, L. (2025). Systemic constraints and state behavior: A neorealist perspective on China’s BRI and Iran’s strategic calculations. Iranian Studies, 58(3), 526–547. https://doi.org/10.1017/irn.2025.28
53. Vartanyan, O. (2025, September 9). A month after historic Armenia–Azerbaijan summit, has Trump secured a lasting peace? Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2025/09/azerbaijan-armenia-trump-deal
54. Waltz, K. N. (1959). Man, the state, and war: A theoretical analysis. Columbia University Press.
55. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Addison Wesley.
56. Zhang, B. (2023). Polarity and strategic competition: A structural explanation of renewed great power rivalry. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 16(4), 383–405. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/poad012