Armenia’s survival depends on a strong military, not empty rhetoric
Responding to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s daily statements is a full-time job. I take no pleasure in repeatedly criticizing him, but it would be irresponsible to ignore his anti-national positions without worrying about their destructive consequences.
Here is the latest example of his questionable remarks:
In a 46-minute-long speech at the “Comprehensive Security and Resilience 2025” international conference in Yerevan on Sept. 15, Pashinyan began by arguing that “previously, the primary tools for reducing our external security vulnerabilities were military-political alliances and the army.” However, he claimed that “history has proven that this formula did not work…” He asserted that “legitimacy” matters more than military strength for safeguarding the nation. He even suggested that “this strategy has made peace possible,” a transparent ploy to persuade voters to back his political party in next year’s parliamentary elections.
Inexplicably, Pashinyan then tied his “legitimacy strategy” to army’s goals, declaring: “The army of the Armenian Republic has nothing to do outside the internationally recognized territory of the Republic of Armenian, it has no problem and the task of the army is to ensure the protection of the Armenian Republic’s internationally recognized borders.”
This statement is a thinly veiled attempt to justify surrendering the demands of future generations for Armenia’s historical rights. It would be preferable if he simply remained quiet rather than prematurely give up those rights long before the opportune moment arrived.
Pashinyan also repeated his erroneous claim that recognizing Armenia’s current borders makes it easier to buy weapons. In his view, arms suppliers will trust that Armenia won’t use the weapons in a “non-legitimate manner.” He fails to grasp that the legitimacy of Armenia’s borders has nothing to do with being able to purchase weapons. The only thing that matters is one’s ability to pay for the purchase. Either you have the money to pay for the weapons or you don’t. If you are willing to pay, there will be plenty of countries that are ready to sell you any weapon you want; no questions asked. Legitimacy is irrelevant to the arms market.
Next, Pashinyan absurdly stated that in the past, “the army was our first, second, third and fourth line of defense… If your first tool to defend your security is the army, it means you have no defense. The army should not be the first, second, third, fourth or fifth tool for security. It should be the very last one for our security…It shouldn’t even be the 15th, 50th or 100th.” It is not surprising that the Prime Minister, having lost a devastating war in 2020, would utter such spineless nonsense.
Instead of strengthening the military with modern weapons to deter enemies openly threatening Armenia’s existence, Pashinyan is saying that the army should be the last resort to defend the country. With such defeatist thinking, Armenia risks losing even the small territory it has now.
Facing more powerful enemies should not mean that Armenia must refrain from acquiring the necessary weapons to defend itself. Just the opposite. When you are armed to the teeth, even the most powerful enemy will think twice before attacking you, knowing full well that it too will suffer losses. When you are weaker than your enemy, remaining defenseless is not the solution. Being unable to defend yourself is a recipe for disaster. The enemy can easily march to Yerevan without firing a single shot.
Pashinyan illustrated his point with the silly example of painting a mural on the outside wall of your house, sending the message that the neighbor is not entitled to the house he lives in. “This will lead to a dispute, fight, conflict, war.” Pashinyan does not seem to understand that painting whatever you want on the walls of your house, does not grant your neighbor a license to attack your house and murder your family members. If your enemy knows that you are well-armed and ready to defend your house, he will be discouraged from carrying out his hostile intent.
The Prime Minister wrongly thinks that Armenia will continue to exist as a state 50, 100, 150 years from now. He boasted: “We are today more independent than ever before, more sovereign than ever, a state more than ever, and allow me to say, we are safer than ever. The Republic of Armenia has never had more security during its independence than it has today.”
In reality, Pashinyan’s defeatist doctrine plants doubt that Armenia may survive under his rule.
Armenia cannot risk its security by treating the military as a low priority. True legitimacy springs not from empty words but from the tangible guarantee that Armenia’s borders — and its people — are defended by capable, well-equipped forces. It is time for the Prime Minister and the entire leadership to abandon defeatist rhetoric, strengthen strategic alliances and invest decisively in modernizing the Armenian military. Only then can Armenians ensure that no adversary dares test their resolve to defend their sovereignty, which will make Armenia endure as a free, secure and proud nation for generations to come.
Armenia needs to become a modern-day Sparta, just like Israel. Armenia cannot survive on the “goodwill” of countries, especially the likes of Turkey and Azerbaijan, with their genocidal legacy against Armenians, their irredentist claims against Armenia, and their continuing genocidal urges against Armenians (which Aliyev doesn’t even hide). Entrusting Armenia’s security to these Turkic predators, is like entrusting a wolf to guard a flock of sheep or a fox to guard a henhouse.
A small country like Israel, which has meagre natural resources, has heavily invested over the past seven decades in human capital and in the latest technologies (including crucially in military technologies), with the support of its Jewish diaspora. Israel became a military power back in the 1960s.
When Israel achieved this, why shouldn’t Armenia? Armenia is not particularly rich in natural resources, but Armenians are highly innovative and industrious with a large Armenian diaspora, which is always willing to support and to invest. This can and needs to be tapped, when treacherous cowards, defeatists and appeasers like Pasinyan, who put obstacles, are removed.
Maybe Turkey should follow Israel and wipe Armenia out of existence like Gaza. Then Armenians will become stateless people like the Palestinians and Turkeys eastern frontier will be secured and the road to Turkestan will be opened.
Israel only survives with US support. Armenia, likewise will only survive with Russian support.
Some people still dont get it. The Azeris want whats left of Armenia and want to join geographically with the turks. That will fulfill the pan turkic dream. They dont want Armenians in the way. This traitorous regime is making their dream possible (they sre being paid handsomely for it).
Vartan – can you supply evidence of this regime being “paid handsomely”? Of course, not. Empty conjecture with no supporting evidence.
Russian “support” was to accelerate the loss of Artsakh. Look at Lavrov’s “plan” in 2015 – a phased integration of Artsakh back into Azerbaijan with no security guarantees for Armenians under Azeri rule? Is that what you call “support”? Did the CSTO provide support to Armenia against Azeri incursions into its territory?
Mr. Sassounian is right in pointing out the absurdity of Pashinyan’s statement about borders and purchase of weapons – the two are not at all connected.
Or are they? For years, Armenia has been prevented from being a smart consumer in the international arms market by its membership in the CSTO, which insists on “sharing” of purchased military technologies among all members. This naturally turned off arms vendors who could not allow their precious tech in the hands of Russia. Israeli drones are included among this tech, along with Western weaponry.
If Pashinyan – or anyone – intends to make the Armenian army stronger and the country more independent, Armenia must be able to purchase from the global military market. In order to do this, Armenia must pull itself out of Russia’s/CSTO’s orbit. And in order to do that, he must reconcile – somehow – with Armenia’s immediate neighbors, at least enough to have a secure border. It’s a risky gambit, but the alternative is continued abdication of sovereignty to Russia, the results of which have ranged from fruitless to catastrophic – including the loss of Artsakh.
Mr. Sassounian’s assessment of military investment strategy and military organization seems uninformed. Armenia’s military expenditures as % of GDP have been above 4% since 2009 – on par with Azerbaijan’s. However, in addition to the limitations on arms acquisitions mentioned above, it was the difference in absolute spending (due to difference in GDP) that was a huge determining factor in the 2020 war. That difference still exists and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. Is it Mr. Sasssounian’s proposal to spend the country into bankruptcy, and thus handing over the country to our more wealthy “neighbors”?
Such a strategy would be foolish, and unnecessary. Until it strikes oil itself, Armenia needs to invest enough to make an attack on it painful to Azerbaijan or Turkey, and thus politically/economically undesirable. It would be difficult to sustain current levels of military spending in the face of other national needs, such as infrastructure, education, welfare, business development, etc. Pashinyan’s restructuring of the military (to professional vs conscripted) makes economic sense, and such transitions tend to improve defense posture and lethality (see “Why We Don’t Learn from History” by Liddel Hart). In my view, the strategy is not to forgo necessary weaponry, but to make each dram of the military budget count. Spending less and being more secure are not mutually exclusive activities.
Perhaps Mr. Sassounian should abandon his rhetoric in favor of proposing a responsible national budget and military re-organization that addresses all the real and varied needs of the country instead of focusing on just one.
Zavens points are absolutely correct perhaps Harut living in the USA should be more realistic just like the Slava Ukraine brigade bandwagon far from the fighting and their own homes and neighbourhoods not in jeopardy can afford their indulgence. Armenia if it is to have a military first policy like north Korea would have to neglect public works which would cause major problems. The CTSO is a significant issue, as a Russian led alliance any member is greatly restricted in what it could purchase from NATO countries whose technology is generally more advanced such as France and Greece who are sympathetic but until Armenia distanced from CTSO were not allowed to sell Armenia equipment to ward off Turkic aggression. It should be noted and acknowledged that Azerbaijan not being part of either alliance was able to purchase equipment Armenia couldn’t, not just it’s petrodollars advantage… As such when Armenia held the hegemony from 1994 there was little reason to question this, with the defeat of 2020 and Russia failure to safeguard their commitments in Arktash and it’s own problems means that what was unnecessary to consider is now essential to broach. The other issue is that in the first conflict both had an equally soviet experience but Armenia was able to play it’s cards better a generation later Armenia remained tied into Russia whilst Azerbaijan was able to develop links more dynamically along with the insult and betrayal of Russia pre Pashinyan selling weapons to Azerbaijan ready to be used on Armenia!