In an era where traditional diplomacy often struggles due to endless aid commitments and short-lived ceasefires, the government led by US President Donald Trump is shaping a novel foreign policy approach. What if peace is not just an idealistic goal, but a structured business model? Imagine resolving decades-long conflicts by bundling ceasefire agreements with revenue-generating infrastructure such as changing trade routes through railways, promoting mining rights for reconstruction, or ensuring long-term influence through ports.
This is the essence of the “Corridors-for-Peace” strategy, which the US has deployed and demonstrated on three continents in recent months. From mineral-rich regions in Eastern Europe like Ukraine to the copper belt in Central Africa, and a new transport route in the South Caucasus region of Europe, these agreements publicly emphasize reconciliation while privately reshaping strategic geopolitical dynamics to safeguard US interests, marginalize competitors, and shift relationships between nations from aid dependency to self-sustaining economic connections.
Collectively, these factors reveal a seemingly replicable strategy. At its core is the exchange of security for economic benefits: halting hostilities in exchange for gaining rights to profitable assets. Additionally, the US also retains exclusive oversight or development rights in related corridors, funding, or resource areas, deliberately altering supply chain routes to weaken the influence of adversaries like Russia, China, or Iran.
For example, the official mining agreement signed in April 2025 between Ukraine and the US established a reconstruction investment fund. This fund will extract 50% of the future mining rights royalties from uranium, lithium, rare earth elements, and other key minerals for financing post-war recovery in Ukraine, with the US gaining priority usage and supervisory rights. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda in Africa, Washington successfully brokered an agreement in June 2025 involving troop withdrawals and cessation of support for rebels in exchange for investments in the cobalt, copper, and lithium supply chains, opening up the African Great Lakes region for US-backed capital and providing a new route to break Chinese blockade. Similarly, the Armenian-Azerbaijani agreement reached in August 2025 includes the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” corridor, granting the US exclusive development rights on a transit route bypassing Russia and Iran for 99 years, with both countries pledging to respect territorial sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs. While these initiatives address different conflicts, they all follow the same framework: linking peace with profit under US leadership.
Public narratives are filled with notions of victory and prosperity. Handshakes and ceremonies take center stage, with President Donald Trump describing the Armenian-Azerbaijani agreement as a “historic” turning point where former enemies “will now be long-term friends.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio also echoed similar sentiments, praising the agreement for its potential to foster regional prosperity. Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe referred to the agreement as a turning point. For many participants, such expressions are sincere, seen as a moral obligation to end the suffering of populations. However, this strategy also involves deeper mechanisms.
Beneath the surface of these agreements lies the strategic depth of nations. They embed US companies in critical transportation routes from African railways to the South Caucasus mountain pass, while altering trade routes to weaken competitors. The financing model shifts from endless aid to self-generated funds: stable mineral usage fees and tolls are only maintained under conditions of ongoing peace, creating robust incentive mechanisms.
This model harmonizes interests on various levels: local income rises, ensuring stable funding for maintenance; the US expands influence to secure supply chain security, deter adversary control of key assets, and gain diplomatic leverage; and on a global scale, US showcases its trading power. A crucial aspect is durability: aid carries unstable risks, whereas according to supporters, unlike aid, these economic engines will generate enduring value, raising the cost of retreat for involved parties.
The success of the Corridors-for-Peace model hinges on pragmatism. When leaders prioritize compromise over coercion, as seen in the 1978 Camp David Accords (peace for land) or the 2020 Abraham Accords (bypassing core disputes through trade and technology normalization), this model thrives. Conversely, while the US-Ukraine mining fund agreement made commitments, Ukraine remains in a deadlock with Russia, with Kyiv demanding full territorial restitution while Moscow insists on neutrality and annexation, highlighting the limitations of the peace corridor model. However, significant changes occurred in the situation after the meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin in Alaska.
To understand this shift, let’s compare Trump’s Corridors-for-Peace model with early US foreign policy approaches.
During President George W. Bush’s tenure, peace efforts often entailed invasion and nation-building as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, requiring massive troop deployments and billions of dollars, with little connection between stability and local economic interests.
President Barack Obama shifted to diplomacy, sanctions, and multilateral agreements like the JCPOA, where all parties had to comply for sanctions relief. However, without US economic interests to safeguard the agreement’s outcomes, political changes could easily impact the deal.
President Joe Biden subsequently adopted alliance-driven aid and sanctions, just as in Ukraine, involving billions of US dollars without a self-funded mechanism, proving beneficial for all sides in achieving peace.
Even President Bill Clinton’s Dayton Accords relied on NATO enforcement and institutional reform, lacking assets that could generate benefits to sustain stability.
In contrast, President Trump’s new model is entirely different: securing peace agreements through shared interests, US oversight, and sidelining adversaries. This pragmatic approach emphasizes cost-efficiency and stakeholder-oriented interests. Critics warn that this strategy might sacrifice deeper governance reforms for short-term gains.
This US strategy sharply contrasts with its competitors. China’s Belt and Road Initiative emphasizes exerting influence through irreversible foreign loans, heightening dependency on surrounding nations while being susceptible to leverage changes, with Beijing’s $30 billion annual foreign aid contrasting starkly with meager domestic flood relief efforts. Russia freezes conflicts with peacekeeping troops to control situations but lacks economic support. The EU incentivizes European countries with reform-linked accession benefits. The UN focuses on overseeing ceasefires but lacks revenue mechanisms. The US’s advantage lies in transparency: clear, enforceable trade rewarding cooperation through peace for profit, as opposed to opaque or coercive strategies by competitors.
Domestically, ideological debates intensify. Supporters praise its efficiency, believing it can end wars without deploying troops significantly reducing aid expenditures, and undermining adversaries. Critics condemn it as covert imperialism endangering sovereignty of other nations, with human rights as collateral. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Denis Mukwege called the agreement in the Democratic Republic of Congo a “scandalous surrender.” This tension reflects broader issues: whether transactional peace is a sustainable pattern or a dangerous precedent.
By examining the Ukraine mining agreement, the Rwanda-Congo framework, and the Armenian-Azerbaijani corridor, one might notice they depend on a combination of six different conditions. Using these six conditions as a diagnostic tool can evaluate the potential applicability of the “Corridors-for-Peace” model in other conflict zones, identifying opportunities for success and risks of failure.
• Transactional Entity: Both parties must be willing to make concessions for tangible benefits. When leaders insist on extreme demands, like in Ukraine, there is no room for compromise.
• Strategic Assets: There must be ports, corridors, or resources capable of generating stable income. This economic pillar is crucial for self-reinforcing peace.
• Executable US Leadership Role: The US must be able to supervise or ensure the economic part of the agreement’s implementation to deliver tangible returns.
• Replacement of Competitors: The agreement should exclude competitors like China’s BRI, Russia’s regional influence, or Iran’s trade access.
• Alliance Support: Investing with US allies diversifies risk and strengthens commitment.
• Domestic Political Returns: US voters must see the benefits of victory, such as employment, trade, or income sources, to maintain domestic support.
When using these filters to survey the global landscape, potential global hotspots may begin to emerge.
In conclusion, this script is not foolproof; it is a tool that, under united incentives, can achieve significant results but falters when one side remains obstinate.
In a world of evolving alliances and increasing competition, the US is placing its bet on the ability to make peace negotiation tables a win-win platform and securing more benefits for itself. Whether this bet succeeds depends not only on the skill of the brokers but perhaps also on how long this economic adhesive can hold before competitors try to break it.
Time will reveal if this approach can fundamentally reshape the global order. Currently, it signals a shift in US foreign policy, where peace and economic rewards are closely intertwined.