Nikol Pashinyan: Between the Illusion of Sovereignty and the Threat of Catastrophe
The foreign policy of modern Armenia cannot always be assessed from the standpoint of sound logic and pragmatism, as it does not consistently aim to ensure national security, domestic stability, and predictability of the country’s future. The political course of Nikol Pashinyan’s government is presented to society as liberation from dependence and a transition to a “sovereign multivector” policy. However, behind the loud and populist declarations, existential risks and threats are becoming increasingly evident.
For a country like Armenia – small, with limited economic and military resources, a complex geopolitical environment, and unresolved conflicts – security cannot be an abstract category. Small states cannot exist in a vacuum. They are either integrated into a stable system of guarantees or find themselves caught between the millstones of others’ interests.
The “neutrality” declared by Yerevan does not correspond to its actual steps. Formally, the country distances itself from any alliance, yet in practice, it is taking actions that may be perceived as unfriendly by Moscow, as they appear aimed at pushing Russia out of the South Caucasus.
Splitting from Russia: Dismantlement Without Substitution
Relations with Russia in recent years have deteriorated to a level that would have seemed impossible not long ago. Criticism of Moscow’s passivity in 2020 and 2023 could have served as grounds for a difficult but pragmatic revision of the framework of cooperation. However, instead of a careful diplomatic adjustment, a demonstrative path of confrontation was chosen.
Public statements, harsh rhetoric, and declarations about the “failure” of previous security mechanisms have reduced the room for maneuver almost to zero. Diplomacy is the art of keeping doors open. Today, many of those doors are being closed by Nikol Pashinyan and his team.
Armenia remains a member of the Eurasian Economic Union. Economic ties with Russia and other member states of the Union provide export markets, preferential energy terms, labor migration opportunities, and established logistical chains.
Political confrontation with a key partner inevitably affects the economy. A small country cannot afford the luxury of symbolic gestures without calculating their cost. Rising tariffs, trade complications, and stricter migration regulations are all potential instruments of pressure, the consequences of which will be felt by citizens and businesses alike.
More than one million Armenians live and work in Russia. Their social and economic well-being directly depends on the overall political climate. Armenia’s national interest implies the protection of its compatriots abroad. However, escalating tensions risk making the diaspora increasingly vulnerable.
Security Vacuum: The Illusion of Independence
Armenia is distancing itself from the Collective Security Treaty Organization, yet legally it remains bound by its obligations and commitments. The paradox lies in the fact that the only existing security system is being weakened, while no alternative has been established in its place.
Following the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers from Artsakh and the reduction of Russian structures along Armenia’s borders, the burden on the country’s own security forces has increased significantly. Monitoring and securing the borders with Turkey and Iran requires resources that Armenia simply does not possess.
Small states cannot shape their security architecture solely according to their wishes. It is either guaranteed by international legal commitments - or it does not exist at all.
Flirting with the West: Partnership Without Guarantees
Rapprochement with the European Union, the activation of contacts with the United States, and the deepening of military and political dialogue with France are presented as a strategic alternative to the former security architecture.
However, neither NATO nor individual Western powers have provided Armenia with formalized security guarantees. Military drills, observation missions, and supplies of certain types of military equipment are political signals, but they are not equivalent to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Western partners view Armenia primarily as an element within a broader regional configuration, particularly in the context of containing Russia and Iran. Yet being an element of someone else’s strategy is not the same as being a protected ally.
Ukrainian Vector: Symbolism and Consequences
The nature of the foreign policy line is also reflected in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan publicly stated that Armenia “is not Russia’s ally in the war against Ukraine,” thereby emphasizing a degree of distancing from Moscow.
A notable episode was the visit of Anna Hakobyan - the prime minister’s spouse - to Kyiv in September 2023. At the invitation of Ukraine’s First Lady, she attended the Summit of First Ladies and Gentlemen and delivered humanitarian aid for Ukrainian children, including more than one thousand electronic devices for educational purposes.
Formally, it was a humanitarian initiative. However, in international politics, symbols often carry as much weight as formal agreements. The visit became the first step by the Armenian side since the beginning of the conflict that was widely perceived as a clear political signal.
Regional Balance: A Toughening Environment
Yerevan’s pivot toward the West is increasing concerns about the possibility of aggression from Azerbaijan and Turkey. Baku, which possesses significant energy resources and is gaining importance for Europe, is strengthening its position as a predictable partner of the West. This, in turn, reinforces its negotiating leverage. Therefore, in the event of escalating tensions, the West is unlikely to go beyond statements expressing concern about the situation.
At the same time, relations with Iran are becoming increasingly complicated amid the growing military presence of Western actors near its northern borders. Armenia risks weakening its ties with Russia while also provoking mistrust in Iran. Meanwhile, these two countries have traditionally served as a certain balancing factor in the region.
Pashinyan's Words Mismatch With His Deeds
Neutrality implies equidistance and caution. However, the consistency of the Armenian leadership’s actions is increasingly perceived as participation in a strategy aimed at changing the balance of power in the South Caucasus.
As a result, the country finds itself not “above the battle,” but within a new line of confrontation, without formal guarantees and with previously established ties weakened.
The Country Cannot Live With Illusions
Sovereignty is not only the right to choose, but also the ability to ensure positive outcomes from that choice. Small states in a complex geopolitical environment must act with exceptional pragmatism.
Today, Armenia is dismantling its former - albeit imperfect but functioning - security system without creating a new one. In an unfriendly environment, this increases vulnerability rather than independence.
National interests require sober calculation, balance, and consistent steps - the development of new partnerships without “burning old bridges.” So far, Nikol Pashinyan’s political course resembles a movement toward existential risks and threats, where declared neutrality is turning into a risky venture, and the cost of potential mistakes may prove too high for the state and the nation.
