KeghartBy Dr. Robert O. Krikorian, Maryland, USA. 16 May 2026
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.
*****
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.
Keghart
Keghart
7 comments
Thank you, Robert Krikorian, for an analysis that deserves wider circulation instead of the bill of goods corporate controlled media is peddling. We trust you will contribute to Keghart on a frequent basis.
Dear Dr. Robert Krikorian
Your suggestion to initiate a pan-national security dialogue is also hopeless. In my view, we need an exceptional LEADER who is capable of uniting this nation.
Expert analysis from one with the credentials for such analysis. Thank you Dr. Krikorian, and thank you, Keghart! Indeed, continue to contribute!
Dear Dr. Krikorian,
Your article forcefully raises one of the most fundamental questions Armenia faces today: can the future of a people and a state be built merely on hope, goodwill, or the mercy of great powers?
I do not think it can. Yet it also cannot be built on fear alone. Armenia’s tragedy is that it is not choosing among good options, but often among bad and worse ones. Its geography is merciless: on one side stand the expansionist policies of Turkey and Azerbaijan; on another, an unreliable but still influential Russia; and to the south, Iran, which has become almost a necessary lifeline for Armenia.
The image used in your article expresses this reality very powerfully. Armenia is not shown as a political subject with its own will, but almost as a chessboard on which great and regional powers make their moves. It is a disturbing image, but also an instructive one. The issue is not only which power Armenia should engage with, but whether Armenia can become its own historical and strategic subject amid the moves of others.
For this reason, normalization along the Turkey-Azerbaijan axis cannot be seen merely as a matter of opening borders, developing trade, or building transport routes. Behind this axis stand attempts to narrow Armenia’s sovereignty through the Syunik/Zangezur discourse, the institutional anti-Armenian hostility cultivated by the Azerbaijani state, and Turkey’s almost unconditional support for Azerbaijan. Israel’s military-technological support for Azerbaijan further worsens the balance of power against Armenia.
Armenia is facing not only two neighboring states, but also the regional and global support networks behind those neighbors. Therefore, if normalization requires Armenia to silence its memory, suppress its security concerns, and turn its sovereignty into a bargaining chip, then it is not peace. It is asymmetric capitulation.
Yet there is another danger here: replacing illusions with hopelessness alone. To trust the West completely would of course be naive; but becoming captive to Russia again is not a strategy either. Relations with Iran are necessary, but necessity alone cannot constitute a security architecture. Armenia does not need dependence on a single power. It needs a multi-vector balancing policy with clear red lines.
The real question is this: can Armenia think of its historical memory, the wound of Artsakh, the reality of the Genocide, and its present concerns over sovereignty as inseparable from one another? Can it see the Diaspora not as a burden or a romantic outside voice, but as an indispensable part of pan-Armenian strategic thought? If state reasoning and historical memory are turned against each other, Armenian political reason itself becomes fragmented.
Peace is necessary. But peace cannot become the polite name for the strong imposing their terms on the weak. Normalization is necessary. But normalization cannot be built at the cost of stripping Armenia of memory and weakening its sovereignty.
This is why I understand the most important warning in your article as follows: hope alone is not a strategy. I agree. But I would add one more point: peace without memory is not peace either.
The question before Armenia is not only “with whom should we ally?” The deeper question is this: can Armenia refuse to remain a pawn on someone else’s chessboard and become its own historical and strategic subject?
What Armenia needs is a third path between capitulatory hope and paralyzing fear: a realistic, sovereignty-conscious, memory-bearing, pan-Armenian national strategy.
Today, PM Nikol Pashinyan had an election rally in the city of Ardashad and gave a speech that will go down in history. According to Wikipedia “Artashat (Armenian: Արտաշատ [ɑɾtɑˈʃɑt]) is a city in Armenia, the administrative center of the Ararat Province. It is located in the central part of the Ararat Plain, on the left bank of the Araks River, 30 km southeast of the capital Yerevan.” I wrote Ardashad and not Ardashat because of Western and Armenian diction. I invite Dr. Robert O. Krikorian, to hear that speech. His “Hope(lessness) is not a strategy” article is a cool sounding title and is cooked and spiced in the Diaspora and is not a true reflection of the Armenia reality.
“When the axe came into the forest, many of the trees said: ‘At least the handle is one of us.'” The axe’s handle is Pashinyan. The axe carrier is Turkey. The trees are Pashinyan supporters. The saying is Turkish.,
Hello Dr. Krikorian, what a pleasure to read your thought provoking piece on current Armenia’s situation. I happen to agree with most of what you stated. And yet, I am still wishing for the best as I am sure we all are.
Dear Doctor Krikorian, what are the chances of you going to Armenia as your time permits to lecture to the young college students on topics discussed here and other topics that would be much useful to them. I certainly would love to see that.
Again, it was a pleasure reading you and just finding out about you. I will follow your work consistently as I am learning much about it myself. -Greetings Doctor. Be well.