Protecting sovereignty in view of shifting global dynamics

These are perilous times in a world of shifting winds. For small nations such as our beloved homeland, changes among powerful nations can have a wide-ranging impact, from hopeful to devastating. Nothing is guaranteed when Armenia, seeking only peace and sovereignty, struggles for a seat at the table. In its attempts to reduce dependency on Russia, the latter has responded with little more than verbal commentary. Even overt actions, such as freezing CSTO membership, have been met with little more than verbal criticism–a shocking contrast to prior decades when Russian economic and military influence over the region was clear. 

The world looks very different today, with the Russian base still outside Gyumri and European observers patrolling Armenia’s eastern border with Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, Russian troops were asked to vacate their positions at Zvartnots International Airport and the southern border with Iran—an exit carried out compliantly and without incident. This would have been unheard of two decades earlier. 

Russia has been described as “preoccupied” with the war in Ukraine, yet this grossly underestimates the conflict’s impact. Unlike its rapid takeover of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been met with unexpected, stubborn resistance, resulting in massive loss of human life and physical destruction. This is the new proxy war to which Europe and the United States supply weapons but commit no troops—while someone else’s young men and women die. 

Russia is tired and ready for a peace deal. Discussions to end hostilities are taking place with the new American administration, as U.S. President Donald Trump has directly engaged Russian President Vladimir Putin. This marks a seismic shift from the Biden administration’s policy of supplying Ukraine with massive quantities of weapons while refusing to initiate talks with Putin. Trump will certainly engage allies and Ukraine, but after the “table has been set” with Putin. 

Recent history reflects a U.S. policy of direct engagement in both peace and war, followed by periods of isolationist reaction. After the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, America chose a less risky path in Syria to confront ISIS. The Kurds did all the dirty ground work and paid a horrible price. Isolationism also negatively impacted the fledgling first Republic of Armenia when the U.S. Senate rejected the Wilsonian mandate—an outcome of the Paris Peace Conference in 1920—dashing hopes of adding a large section of Western Armenia to the Republic. Today, Trump’s “America First” policy is a hybrid approach—exerting influence on the world stage but with a distinct self-interest. Foreign policy for all nations is about self-interest, but the current approach prioritizes tangible benefit and impact. 

In conflicts such as the Ukraine-Russia war, global issues are always in play. The West armed Ukraine because it was a critical buffer between Europe and an aggressive Russia. The public was fed romantic notions about democracy, but in reality, the buffer served European interests and a willing ally in the United States. The supply of military equipment and economic sanctions have weakened Russia, but it is still viable and dangerous. 

Trump has a different vision—one that avoids paying Ukraine billions only to then get stuck with the bill to rebuild while Europe receives the security benefits. He sees that sanctions have driven Russia closer to China and aims to prevent a Russia-China partnership. If Ukraine loses the eastern portion of its territory, then it will be collateral damage in the interests of the larger goal. 

Trump’s administration may lift economic sanctions in return for Russian policies that favor the U.S., framing it publicly as an end to the horrific carnage. In this scenario, European resources would manage security guarantees, and while foreign troops would be stationed in Ukraine, the country would not join NATO. Russia gets the east, Ukraine gets security and America redirects Russia. This is “America First” in action—making other partners pay their fair share while the U.S. strategically benefits.

How will this impact Armenia? Over the last few years, Armenia has embarked on a perilous mission to reduce dependency on Russia while building a stronger relationship with Europe. This shift, coupled with the fervent effort to establish peace with Azerbaijan, has been the hallmark of PM Nikol Pashinyan’s administration. Progress is enabled by a distracted Russia and a willingness to engage from the West, particularly France and the United States. 

Armenia signed a strategic partnership agreement with the U.S. just a few weeks before the administration change. Though mostly defined by cooperation on military training, economic trade and democratic institutions, it is unclear how the Trump administration will carry this agreement forward. Armenia has stated its long-term intentions to join the European Union. The legislative process has already begun in parliament as the first step toward EU accession. 

Russia has voiced its opposition to this move by Armenia but has limited its response to press statements and private dialogue. If the Trump strategy in Ukraine is successful, then Russia will be relieved of its military drain and can begin the long road to recovery, restoring its ability to respond to Armenia. Historically, Russia has tolerated Azerbaijani aggression against Armenia in order to pressure the latter and keep it less secure. Azeri-Russian relations are not optimal, particularly with the shooting of an Azeri commercial jet by Russian missiles, but the winds of alliances can reverse quickly. 

The West may offer significant financial, economic and democratic institutional support in building a prosperous Armenia, but Armenia needs security guarantees. A robust economy will stabilize migration, but security instability can reverse those gains and threaten Armenia’s sovereignty. European integration offers Armenia the opportunity for sovereignty without creating a de facto vassal state. While Russia has a military presence on its territory and controls major elements of the economy, particularly in market exports and the energy sector, Armenia has embarked on a courageous path fraught with risk.

All Armenians should remember the experiences of Georgia and what will likely soon happen to Ukraine. Georgia began its western movement many years ago and angered what was arguably a much stronger Russia, leading to the invasions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia—the West did little to provide support, and those territories are now de facto Russian. 

A similar territorial breach began as early as 2014 in Ukraine, amid aspirations of NATO membership. The rest is the unfortunate history of the last three years. There are no European casualties, except for thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. The Ukrainian people believe they are supported in their fight for sovereignty and democracy, but in reality, they are pawns in a larger geopolitical game. 

Until the United States and Europe commit to real security guarantees for Armenia, the Western alliance will lack strategic value. When Russia becomes stronger, it will work to re-establish any losses in its regional hegemony. They won’t invade Armenia; they will simply let the Azeris do their work. Pashinyan wants a peace agreement to prevent this possibility. The Azeris seem to be in no rush, with an endless list of absurd demands. Of course, the risk is that Azerbaijan has never honored an agreement. Will America and Europe step up and support Christian Armenia—as Trump has described our homeland—or will Armenia become an inadvertent casualty as a result of shifting alliances?

The choices are simple; it’s the path that’s complicated. Armenia can stick to its Eurasian alliances, maintaining an identity through a feudal relationship with Russia. The alternative is to strengthen its democratic foundation through Western alliances and continue the arduous path to security. Armenia is working to defend itself through military reforms and arm purchases from France and India. This is a new and promising avenue. Will the EU monitors and defensive capabilities be enough to deter the Azeris during this slow transition? Will France and other EU nations step up their support? What kind of public and private diplomatic support will the Trump administration provide in line with the strategic partnership agreement? 

As the Armenian diplomatic corps work towards global support for our nation, we all should consider the broader issues at play when offering opinions. We are a smaller fish in a large body of water. It is critical to not only know where the predator fish reside but how the currents can change and what the protector fish needs. We must focus on the path that will sustain sovereignty. It is a precious commodity, often undervalued—until it is lost.