Armenia at the Crossroads: Peace Abroad Cannot Come at the Cost of Strength at Home

Armenia stands at one of the most consequential crossroads since independence.
The country is attempting something extraordinarily difficult: ending decades of confrontation with
Azerbaijan, reducing its historic dependence on Russia, strengthening relations with the United States
and Europe, and redefining its place in a rapidly changing region.
These goals deserve serious consideration. Armenia cannot remain trapped indefinitely by the conflicts,
alliances and assumptions of the past.
But there is another danger Armenia must confront.
In the pursuit of peace abroad, Armenia cannot afford to become weaker, more divided or less confident
at home.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has made normalization with Azerbaijan a defining objective of his
government. After the catastrophe of the 2020 war and the 2023 exodus of more than 100,000
Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, few Armenians need to be reminded of the terrible price of
conflict.
Peace matters.
But Armenia must ask a harder question: What kind of peace is being built?
A durable peace cannot simply mean that guns have fallen silent. It must mean respect for Armenia's
sovereignty, internationally recognized borders and right to determine its own future without coercion.
Armenia should pursue peace with Azerbaijan vigorously. But reconciliation cannot become a process
in which one side continually demonstrates its willingness to compromise while the other discovers that
pressure produces additional concessions.
The continuing detention of Armenians in Azerbaijan remains an especially painful issue. Their fate
cannot become a footnote to diplomatic negotiations. If Baku wants Armenians to believe that a new era
is genuinely beginning, humanitarian steps would provide powerful evidence.
The debate over Armenia's Constitution raises similarly difficult questions.
Every sovereign democracy has the right to reconsider and amend its Constitution. Armenia is no
exception. Constitutional reform, however, must ultimately reflect the will and aspirations of Armenian
citizens – not the demands or expectations of a neighboring government.
That distinction is essential.
Armenians must be able to debate their history, identity and constitutional future without believing that
fundamental elements of their national story are being negotiated across an international table.

Page 2

Meanwhile, Armenia's relationship with Russia is undergoing a historic transformation.
For decades, Moscow was presented as Armenia's indispensable security guarantor. Events since 2020
shattered much of that assumption. Many Armenians understandably concluded that dependence on
Russia did not deliver the security they had been promised.
Diversifying Armenia's relationships is therefore not only reasonable; it is necessary.
Closer partnerships with Europe and the United States can provide Armenia with economic
opportunities, diplomatic alternatives and greater room to maneuver.
But replacing dependence on one great power with dependence on another would not constitute genuine
independence.
Armenia's ultimate objective must be strategic self-reliance: capable armed forces, resilient democratic
institutions, a competitive economy, diversified foreign relationships and a diaspora treated as a national
asset rather than an occasional source of financial support.
Yet perhaps Armenia's greatest immediate vulnerability is internal division.
The increasingly bitter confrontation between the government, opposition figures and the Armenian
Apostolic Church risks deepening fractures at precisely the moment Armenia needs national cohesion.
No institution should be above scrutiny. Neither government officials nor religious leaders should be
immune from accountability.
But political disagreements must not become battles over who is sufficiently Armenian, patriotic or
legitimate.
A nation of roughly three million people, surrounded by enormous geopolitical pressures, cannot afford
permanent internal warfare.
The Armenian diaspora has responsibilities as well. Supporting Armenia should not require
unconditional support for its government, nor should opposition to Pashinyan become opposition to
Armenia itself.
Diaspora Armenians should demand accountability from Yerevan while strengthening Armenia's
institutions, economy, education, security and international relationships.
Armenia does not have to choose between peace and dignity.
It does not have to choose between escaping dependence on Moscow and preserving its national
identity.
And it should never have to choose between democracy and security.
The real challenge of 2026 is not merely whether Armenia can sign a peace agreement.
It is whether Armenia can emerge from this turbulent period stronger than it entered it: peaceful but not
passive, democratic but not divided, open to the world but anchored in its identity.

Page 3

Peace may end a war. Only a strong Armenia can secure the future.