Hope(lessness) is not a Strategy: Confronting Armenia’s Strategic Choices
Keghart
The notion that outside powers view Armenia as anything other than a pawn is pure fiction. Both historically and today, Armenia’s main role is as an obstacle to achieving other states’ goals. Ignoring these realities, the government of Armenia has chosen a path of capitulation and willful self delusion.
And hope, or more accurately in the Armenian case, hopelessness is not a strategy. Unfortunately, however, wishful thinking conditioned by a sense of inevitable failure seems to be the preferred strategy of the current government of Armenia.
This defeatist wishful thinking can be seen at almost every level of Armenian state policy. The government of Armenia hopes that unending concessions to Azerbaijan will bring peace.
They will not.
Artsakh has been ethnically cleansed and even as you read these lines, its cultural heritage is being subjected to complete destruction.
Sovereign, internationally recognized Armenian territory is still occupied by the Bashibouzouks of Baku.
The Aliev dictatorship has ramped up its rhetoric regarding the very existence of Armenia by claiming that in fact, Armenia is nothing more than occupied Western Azerbaijan.
The Aliev regime continues to illegally hold Armenian hostages in the most vile and uncivilized conditions, refusing to even consider releasing them.
Thus far, all of Armenia’s concessions have produced absolutely nothing in return, not even rhetorically.
The government of Armenia hopes that by ignoring the Armenian Genocide and other historical and cultural realities Turkey will act like a responsible state.
It has not and will not.
Armenia has been and still is the bone in the throat of Pan-Turkism, the roadblock separating Turkey from its self-proclaimed Turkic brothers in Azerbaijan and Central Asia. The Armenian Genocide of 1915 did not happen in a vacuum, but was inseparably connected to the dominant Pan-Turkic ideology of uniting all Turkic peoples, the path to which ran through the Armenian Highlands. Armenian Genocide architect and Turkish national hero Enver Pasha died fighting in Central Asia trying to realize this dream.
The Republic of Turkey’s open, proud and direct participation in the destruction of Artsakh and its unrelenting support for Azerbaijan (one nation, two states) should be a clear and obvious sign that Ankara has no intention of moderating its behavior toward Armenia.
The ongoing multi-billion dollar Armenian Genocide denial industry in Turkey is further evidence of ill intentions. At 111 years and counting, who is naive enough to believe that Turkey is ready to confront its past and deal with Armenia as a sovereign and equal state? They can’t even accept Kurds as equal citizens of Turkey.
And what of Turkey’s aggression against Syrian Kurds? Against Iraqi Kurds?
And who, after all, speaks of a Turkish withdrawal from northern Cyprus? The Ankara regime has occupied Cypriot territory since 1974 and yet the international community has remained largely silent.
It is absurd for the government of Armenia to think that it is safe from Turkish aggression no matter how much it downplays the Armenian Genocide and how many national symbols it removes and however much it attempts to destroy the Armenian people’s historical memory!
The government of Armenia hopes that its reorientation away from Russia will not have serious repercussions.
It will.
Armenia has the right and responsibility to choose its own path in the world, including choosing its partners and allies. But basing these choices off of wishful thinking and not correlating them to Armenia’s current geopolitical and socioeconomic situation is simply a dereliction of its duty to protect its sovereignty and the rights of its citizens.
Historically and until recently, Russia, whether Imperial, Soviet or post-Soviet, viewed Armenia as a southern bulwark against Turkey and Pan-Turkism and was inclined to include it under its security umbrella, not out of any pro-Armenian sentiment, but for Russia’s own state interests as defined and redefined by Moscow. The 2020 44-Day War and 2023 ethnic cleansing of Artsakh were obviously the result of Moscow’s changed calculations of its state interests.
The current Armenian authorities approach to Moscow should not be mischaracterized as anti-Russian. Its policies need to be labeled for what they are: inconsistent and erratic. One day praising and the next provoking is hardly the hallmark of mature leadership. The current Armenian leadership’s antics vis-à-vis Moscow are simply breathtaking in their carelessness. Whether you like Putin or do not is irrelevant. A self-castrated Armenia is hardly doing itself any favors by acting in such insultingly cartoonish fashion.
What actual plans do the current authorities have regarding Armenia’s realignment away from Russia? They can claim that they don’t have to choose but that is hardly a strategy.
The government of Armenia hopes that Europe will embrace it and help pave the way for European integration.
It will not.
Despite Armenia’s self-proclaimed European orientation, institutional Europe views Armenia through the lens of its anti-Russian stance, seeing Yerevan’s re-orientation away from Russia as a win, regardless of the costs for Armenia. Europe has staked absolutely nothing on Armenia, therefore it has nothing to lose or gain should Armenia need assistance.
Is institutional Europe prepared to fully embrace and defend Armenia? The answer is obviously no. Georgia’s experience with the EU flirtation should make it painfully obvious to all that Armenia is never going to be a part of institutional European structures. As soon as Europe comes to an understanding with Russia, the Armenian fantasy will dissipate like fog.
The government of Armenia hopes that the United States is somehow serious about TRIPP and will not lose interest.
It will most likely lose interest.
If history is any guide, the US commitment should be questioned. The United States is struggling to extract itself from an unwinable war against Iran. It cannot articulate its core interests in most parts of the world, including the South Caucasus, and has shown very little interest understanding the geopolitical situation in the region.
It is a very dubious proposition that reliance on economic development and incentives can lay the ground work for any type of lasting peace. One is hard pressed to think of any examples of a stable and lasting peace being built exclusively on commercial agreements.
Rather, history has amply demonstrated that lasting and stable peace is only possible through a comprehensive, nuanced approach, incorporating multiple layers and elements of compromise.
One also needs to take into account the interests and actions of the US-European hybrid military alliance, NATO, which is currently in disarray.
And the above actors are not the only interested outside parties. With more Azeris in Iran than in the Republic of Azerbaijan, Tehran sees Armenia as a useful hedge against Azerbaijani irredentism, whether in the form of Western Azerbaijan directed against Armenia or Southern Azerbaijan directed against northern Iran. Tehran has consistently offered its services to mediate between Armenia and Azerbaijan and Iran’s diplomatic efforts have been supportive of Armenia’s territorial integrity as a result of Azeri actions and rhetoric.
And we haven’t even added in the those other powers with regional interests, such as Israel, China, India.
The assumptions that Armenia is a fully autonomous actor on the world stage and that Armenian diplomacy is skilled enough to thread the needle between all the actors noted above seems naive at best and potentially disastrous at worst.
The formulation of an Armenian national security strategy has been neglected for 35 years and has put Armenia in the most vulnerable position since independence. It is long overdue for the Armenian government to act on this and instead of driving the Diaspora away, it should begin a pan national security dialogue. Armenia’s sovereignty is not just the business of the Armenian government.
*****
