Armenia Needs to Challenge Its Assumptions

By Robert O. Krikorian, PhD, Maryland, USA, 3 June 2026

One of the first things intelligence analysts are taught is the critical importance of constantly challenging assumptions. Both our own assumptions and those of our adversaries must be thoroughly surfaced, rigorously examined, and then reexamined. Engaging in this critical thinking process can help minimize surprise while providing a structured approach to problem-solving.

It is an iterative process in which new information may necessitate a fundamental rethinking of our analysis. Only by being open to alternative ideas, explanations, and approaches can the analyst overcome their inherent biases.

The other benefit of constantly challenging one’s assumptions is that it can help mitigate the destructive effects of groupthink. The social psychologist Irving Janis coined the term in 1972 to describe the psychological phenomenon in which the desire for harmony or conformity within a group leads to irrational or dysfunctional decision-making. The natural human tendency is to see what we want to see even in the face of disconfirming evidence.

And why should a reader concerned with Armenian issues care about any of the above? Because it was precisely this failure to challenge assumptions that led to Armenia’s defeat in the 44 Day War of 2020, to the ethnic cleansing of Artsakh in 2023, and is now leading Armenia down a very dangerous path.

The following discussion is not exhaustive but will highlight some of the most pertinent examples of the Armenian leadership’s failure to challenge assumptions.

Assumption #1: Turkey and Azerbaijan want peace

The current regime in Armenia has provided no evidence or reasoned analysis that Ankara and Baku want anything other than a weak and compliant Armenia to serve their own strategic interests.

Neither Turkey nor Azerbaijan has provided any basis for the mistaken Armenian notion that they are negotiating in good faith or would be even willing to do so. On the contrary, their racist and threatening rhetoric makes it abundantly clear what their real intentions are, and whoever doesn’t recognize this is either willfully blind or woefully ignorant. Neither explanation gives one any cause for confidence or optimism.

Assumption #2: Armenian concessions are providing the basis for a just, lasting, and durable peace

The current Armenian regime’s endless concessions and capitulations will not create the conditions of peace, nor will they prevent Ankara and Baku from seeking more and more concessions.

Not satisfied with the ethnic cleansing of Artsakh, Baku is systematically implementing its plan of cultural genocide by destroying every last vestige of the ancient Armenian presence in Artsakh. The current Armenian regime has remained silent in the face of these atrocities. While Armenian hostages languish in Azerbaijani prisons after sham trials, the current Armenian authorities turn a blind eye and act as if these prisoners do not exist. They also ignore or deny the uncomfortable reality of the Azerbaijani occupation of sovereign Armenian territory.

How is this shameful silence conducive to peace?

And what of Ankara’s demands? Will removing the symbols of national identity like Mount Ararat, or changing Armenian educational standards, or consigning Armenian history to oblivion somehow satisfy the pan-Turkic fever dreams of Ankara?

Most of us learned early on in life that acquiescing to bullies only makes us a bigger target. And a lack of self-respect only attracts more bullying. During the Armenian Genocide, many people argued that giving the Turks whatever they wanted would satisfy them and spare the Armenian people. Sadly, we all know how that turned out.

Assumption #3: America’s alleged focus on Armenia is beneficial and in the long-term interests of Armenia

The humanitarianism and generosity of the American people and the US government before, during, and after the 1915 Armenian Genocide are deserving of the undying gratitude of all Armenians. However, this should not distract us from the realization that today, the United States is using Armenia for its own purposes of isolating Iran, undermining Russian influence, and seeking access to critical natural resources.

It is highly unlikely that US interest will stay focused on Armenia should Washington determine its strategic interests lie elsewhere. Past examples of American unreliability can be found in neighboring Georgia, as well as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, while the current American lack of commitment to its longstanding alliances is clear for all to see. Even a cursory glance at the most recent US National Security Strategy makes it evident that Armenia has misplaced hope in long-term American involvement in the region. And when American interest wanes, and its focus moves elsewhere, what is Armenia’s plan?

Assumption #4: Armenia’s turn from Russia will not have serious repercussions, strategic planning is unnecessary

The current Armenian regime appears to be caught off guard by Russia’s retaliation against Yerevan’s flirtation with the West. While the Armenian government is free to choose whatever orientation it thinks best to ensure the security of the Republic and its citizens, it also needs to take into consideration the geopolitical and economic realities of its position and the implications for its choices.

Did the current regime plan for the possibility that the price for Russian gas would increase to market prices if Armenia left the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union? If so, what is the plan?

Did the current regime plan for the possibility that the special status of the hundreds of thousands of Armenians working in Russia would be impacted by Yerevan’s decisions? If so, how does the current regime plan on handling the lack of remittances so critical to the Armenian economy? And if Armenians are expelled from Russia en masse, what plans are in place to resettle them in Armenia?

Did the current regime plan on the possibility of Russia restricting imports of Armenian products, such as mineral water, wine and brandy, fruits and vegetables, and other important income-generating commodities? If so, what alternative markets has the current regime proposed to offset the loss of the Russian market?

Sadly, Armenia’s options are legitimately limited by several factors, including its landlocked position in a rough geopolitical neighborhood, economic uncertainty, and demographic decline but the current regime’s own failure to foresee the consequences of its action is an unforced error.

It is not too late, however, to reverse this troubling trend. The next government of Armenia needs to make judicious use of skilled Armenian administrative professionals, regardless of place of birth or partisan affiliation. While this is by no means a cure-all, it can set the stage for a more effective and efficient use of Armenia’s greatest resource: the Armenian people, of which the Diaspora is an inseparable part.

*****

Dr. Robert O. Krikorian retired from the Department of State after more than two decades as an intelligence analyst and senior adviser. He began his State Department career as a diplomatic historian, focusing on the practical and policy-relevant applications of historical knowledge. He earned a Bachelor’s Degree from Clark University, a Master’s Degree from The George Washington University and received his PhD in History and Eurasian Studies from Harvard University, where he also taught courses on Russian and Middle Eastern History. In addition, he has taught at the Elliott School of International Affairs at The George Washington University and has lectured to hundreds of diplomats at the State Department Foreign Service Institute as part of their training for postings in the South Caucasus and elsewhere. Dr. Krikorian has written and presented extensively on the modern history and politics of Armenia and Eurasia.