Road Map of National Catastrophe: The Price of Thousands of “Reasonable” Decisions
A catastrophe never happens overnight. It does not strike like sudden thunder. It accumulates through hundreds and thousands of small decisions that — at the moment they are made — seem “rational,” “forced,” and “inevitable.”
One reform is postponed.
One document is shelved.
One warning is ignored.
Step by step, a country that once had a strategy, an army, allies, and a historic window of opportunity leads itself to the edge of the abyss.
This analysis draws on observations by political scientist Artur Khachikyan, who examines national catastrophe not as abstract geopolitics, but as the result of a sequence of concrete decisions.
The Strategy That Once Existed
In 2018, under the leadership of Defense Minister Vigen Sargsyan, a seven-year modernization program for Armenia’s Armed Forces (2018–2024) was developed.
The program envisioned:
- Establishing a unified command and intelligence system;
- Developing precision-guided missile and artillery capabilities;
- Modernizing advanced strike technologies;
- Expanding the domestic defense industry to meet at least 25% of national needs;
- Increasing defense spending to more than 4% of GDP.
Think tanks, including the Jamestown Foundation, viewed the program as the foundation of an “Active Denial System” capable of inflicting disproportionate damage on a potential adversary.
Armenia had a plan, resources, and time. After May 2018, however, the program was effectively frozen.
Expensive Fighter Jets Without Missiles
In 2019, Armenia ordered four Su-30SM multirole fighter aircraft.
The jets were delivered in 2020. However, missiles for them were not purchased.
Official statements referred to their “combat use,” but it later emerged that the necessary ammunition had not been acquired.
According to SIPRI, Armenia’s military spending in 2019 amounted to approximately $635 million, with defense expenditures reaching about 4.9% of GDP.
Funding was available, but the link between strategic planning and procurement proved broken.
Reports by Transparency International described Armenia’s defense sector as an area of high corruption risk, highlighting systemic vulnerabilities in planning and oversight.
An Army Without Technological Tools
After the April 2016 war, it became clear that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were essential. Nevertheless, by 2020, no systemic investments had been made in attack drones, electronic warfare systems, or anti-drone defenses.
According to public statements, in the summer of 2020, the Chief of the General Staff, Onik Gasparyan, warned of possible direct involvement by Turkey in the conflict. Similar signals reportedly came from security services.
Political decisions, however, remained unchanged.
From Negotiations to Rhetoric
On August 5, 2019, in Stepanakert, Nikol Pashinyan declared:
“Artsakh is Armenia, full stop.”
In the international arena, this formulation was perceived as a departure from the Madrid Principles. The negotiation process was effectively frozen.
On October 19, 2020, according to published information, a ceasefire proposal was presented that would have left Shushi under Armenian control. The proposal was rejected. Three weeks later, an agreement was signed on significantly less favorable terms.
Shushi As A Turning Point
Shushi was a strategic height under the control of Stepanakert. Azerbaijani special forces bypassed the main defensive directions and advanced through areas considered impassable.
The defense suffered from the absence of unified command, incomplete mobilization, and insufficient reserves. The city fell — a turning point in the war.
The Post-War Narrative
After the defeat, political rhetoric shifted. The focus moved from the language of self-determination to what was described as “lowering sights.”
The prime minister stated:
“We did not lose Nagorno-Karabakh — we gained the Republic of Armenia.”
Analysts interpreted this as an attempt to politically reframe defeat for the sake of survival.
In 2018, his approval rating stood at approximately 70 percent. Within a few years, it declined significantly.
According to Artur Khachikyan, catastrophe is the result of a chain of decisions:
Freezing the modernization program;
- Expensive procurements that did not enhance combat capability;
- Ignoring intelligence warnings;
- Ignoring intelligence warnings;
- Failure to conduct full mobilization;
- Rejecting ceasefire proposals;
- Politically reframing the defeat.
Each decision, taken in isolation, may have appeared difficult but defensible. Together, they formed a roadmap to national tragedy.
Stepanakert was emptied. Shushi came under Azerbaijani control. Tens of thousands were displaced.
The question remains open: will Armenia draw lessons from this experience — or will history repeat itself?
