What is an ally? Armenia’s security and the politics of self-interest

Armenia and its global nation live within two parallel realities. Emigration from Armenia has stabilized, with a recent report indicating a modest population increase. Despite some sector volatility, the economy has generally met expectations with reasonable growth–especially notable given Armenia’s economic dependency on Russia and the sanctions levied against the latter by the West. Tourism remains a key economic driver and the most visible sign of vibrancy in Armenia. The summer months bring thousands of visitors, boosting the economy and further exposing the homeland’s culture to the world. It seems that the regional instability has not significantly impacted the flow of Armenians and other visitors.

If we choose to ignore Armenia’s security and political challenges, there is much to inspire pride and optimism. The technology sector continues to expand, with impressive foreign investment. Healthcare is improving for its citizens and education continues to fuel a bright future. Wine and food festivals reflect the emergence of new industries. Most impressive, however, are Armenia’s resilient and welcoming people—its greatest asset and living ambassadors to the world. But, of course, we can only ignore certain realities in our dreams. 

While Armenia shines in the beauty and depth of its culture, it exists in an unstable and aggressive neighborhood. This is nothing new. The country has long been a crossroads for warring nations and empires, often at the cost of its sovereignty. During centuries of subjugation, Armenians miraculously retained their culture, faith and identity until a window of freedom opened. Since the Turkic invasions of the 10th century, beginning in Central Asia and sweeping into Anatolia and Asia Minor, Turks have consistently posed a threat to Armenian survival. What began as a perceived benevolent structure in the Ottoman millet system of governance evolved into institutional discrimination against non-Turkic Christians, and ultimately, degenerated into genocide in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 

Despite the incredible resilience of generations living in these conditions, the societal structures served as a dark cloud over the nation. Our ancestors were happy in the context of familial and village life. Yet, a political identity was denied while democratic nation-states were emerging. When the natural state of enlightenment came to Armenia, Turks responded with attempted erasure.

Today, though Armenia has emerged as a modern independent state, it remains surrounded by descendants of neighbors who attempted to destroy their existence. Any limitations in diaspora-homeland relations are underscored by the fact that the diaspora exists in large part because of expulsion by these same neighbors. Any tension between the diaspora and the homeland—or any institution, for that matter—is tragic, since we all branch from the same ancestral tree. 

The Ottoman criminals were succeeded by the Republic of Turkey—founded on the blood and wealth of Christian genocides. The Tatar menace to the east became the artificial Republic of Azerbaijan, which emerged from the Soviet era as a vile dictatorship, its wealth concentrated in fossil fuels used to extort dependent nations. Turkey remains a cynical aggressor towards Armenia. Behind its veneer of Western suits and NATO credentials, it deploys hatred toward Armenia through its barbaric cousins on the Caspian Sea via the notorious “one nation, two states” policy. Essentially, this results in two geographic fronts against Armenia, coordinated to maximize aggression. 

This policy is simply an updated version of the Ittihad pan-Turkic dream stretching from Asia Minor to Central Asia—with Armenia eliminated as an inconvenience. While we cannot pick our neighbors or our neighborhood, survival is fundamental. Though the current security situation can feel overwhelming, I am certain that the threats posed by the Seljuks, Persians and Ottomans throughout our history were at least equal in their impact to Armenian survival.

Under pseudo-Sultan Erdogan, Turkey operates as a cunning fox—skillfully playing both sides of a conflict to increase its hegemony. It is no secret that Erdogan is a great admirer of the corrupt Ottoman legacy, viewing Syria through the lens of a former Ottoman Turkish territory ripe for reclamation. Beneath his diplomatic veneer lies the same contemptuous “gavoor” attitude towards Armenians held by his ancestors. He once referred to the diaspora as “remnants of the sword”—a clear reference to survivors of the genocide. While Armenia has sought to normalize relations and has advocated for an opening of the border with Turkey, Erdogan continues to introduce new “preconditions” each month. 

There has been legislation in the Turkish parliament to name the proposed border crossing after Talaat Pasha—architect of the Armenian Genocide. Leaking information on this issue has a clear intent. Interestingly, during the last few weeks, Turkey announced that the Holy Mother of God Cathedral at Ani—a historically Armenian site— would be extensively renovated into a mosque, with no reference to its Armenian origins. These examples demonstrate a continued disrespect for Armenians and a lack of integrity in normalization talks. For Turkey, “normalization” means a subordinated and weakened Armenia. 

Azerbaijan, by contrast, is far less cunning in its relations with Armenia. It plays the role of an unapologetic aggressor in the “one nation” dynamic. It has become the face of international duplicity—engaging in peace negotiations under the banner of territorial integrity, while occupying over 200 km² of Armenian territory, demanding a territorial “corridor” through Armenia and calling much of the Republic of Armenia “Western Azerbaijan.” Armenia continues to seek avenues for a peace agreement, even at the risk of domestic tension. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, adds multiple preconditions to delay the process and demonstrate their lack of political will.

Armenia is a small nation dependent on others for security. With Georgia turning away from Europe through increasingly anti-Western policies and Azerbaijan acting as a rogue petrostate, Armenia is viewed by Europe and the United States as a Western-friendly foothold in the South Caucasus. All relations start with self-interest, and intersecting interests can create alliances. But the question remains: Who are Armenia’s allies? How should we define an ally? From the perspective of a Western power, Armenia represents an opportunity to limit Russian (and perhaps Iranian) influence in what has traditionally been Russia’s sandbox. 

Historically, Armenia has always needed a protector, given the regional geopolitical dynamics. After independence in 1991, Russia played that role, but relations have soured, especially after Russia’s inability to honor its defense commitment through the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Pashinyan has gradually pivoted away from Russian influence, freezing relations with the CSTO and signaling a potential exit. The challenge is finding a new security guarantor. Russia still maintains a military base in Gyumri—the only foreign military presence in Armenia. Meanwhile, the EU’s peacekeeping observer mission is unarmed and non-military. Real security guarantees require a military commitment, preferably on the ground.

The West has a poor record of backing its encouragement with military support in the Caucasus. Simply ask the Georgians what happened in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. For these reasons, the future holds many questions without clear answers. Russia has been unable to respond to these changing dynamics in Armenia, given the economic impact of sanctions and the devastating war in Ukraine. How would Russia, with its physical presence, respond to a Western military commitment? Would Western support ever evolve into direct military backing?

Let us be clear: a peace treaty with Azerbaijan alone will not deter their aggression towards Armenia. Azerbaijan has a long history of violating agreements while advocating criminal violence. While Armenia’s relations with the West have deepened through economic aid, French arms purchases and joint military exercises, “strategic partnerships” should not be mistaken for security guarantees. Armenia’s pivot towards the West is driven by economic, diplomatic and democracy-building aspirations, but without a security foundation, domestic prosperity and external vulnerability cannot co-exist. 

This is why the endpoint of the Western transition must be with security, or Armenia will be left exposed.

Ironically, many in the Western diaspora agree with this migration but are critical of the Armenian government. It seems like an opportunity to understand further. 

Western nations have publicly applauded Armenia’s pursuit of peace with Azerbaijan and diplomatic normalization with Turkey. I would speculate that, privately, they appreciate that Armenia has taken the high road in response to Azerbaijani nonsense. Yet, their encouragement is based purely on self-interest—an effort to extinguish another flash fire in the world before it escalates and disrupts economic stability. It is not based solely on what Armenia needs to survive. 

The U.S. president recently spoke about the peace treaty as a means of preventing another conflict. U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, spoke shamefully and arrogantly about the current third-party proposal in Armenia, as if he were refereeing a fight between petulant parties. There was no mention of Azerbaijan’s usurping of sovereign Armenian territory as being the root cause of the conflict. His insensitive comments about the genocide reflected an overtly denialist mentality. These are sobering reminders that even friends act out of self-interest.

Turkey has no history of honoring peace with Armenians unless forced to by security protectors. That remains the only deterrent it comprehends. Aliyev and Erdogan are dictators who rely on victimizing others with false narratives to maintain power. To them, the truth is an enemy. 

It is critical for Armenians to remember: alliances are formed when there is a critical mass of intersecting self-interests. When dealing with our neighbors to the East and West, peace through strength is a requirement.