Armenia between three strategic crises

There are periods in the history of states when challenges do not arise in isolation, but form a unified crisis environment. At such moments, it is not enough to respond to individual threats, but it is necessary to rethink the country’s place in the changing world, define national interests and develop a long-term development strategy.

Armenia is in exactly such a situation today.

The internal political polarization, the change in the regional balance of power and the profound transformation of the international order are no longer separate processes. They mutually reinforce each other and determine the state’s ability to maintain stability and subjectivity.

Today, Armenia faces three interconnected strategic crises: the internal stability crisis, the regional security crisis, and the global order crisis.

A crisis of internal stability

The internal crisis in Armenia has not yet turned into an open civil conflict, but the level of political polarization creates serious risks for the stability of the state. A democratic society presupposes the competition of different points of view. The problem arises when the minimum consensus disappears on issues that are beyond the borders of the current political struggle, on issues of security, foreign policy priorities, development of institutions, and the future of the state.

The peculiarity of the current stage is not only the political opposition. After the fundamental change of the regional reality in recent years, our society lacks a unified understanding of the country’s long-term strategy.

If the political competition turns into a struggle to destroy the opponent, the state gradually loses the ability to make strategic decisions. With the deterioration of the socio-economic situation, the decrease of trust in state institutions and the growth of public dissatisfaction, the internal crisis may deepen, creating a threat to public stability.

That is why internal consolidation should be considered as a key component of national security. Armenia needs to restore the minimum national consensus on fundamental issues in the direction of maintaining independence, ensuring security, strengthening institutions and creating conditions for long-term development. Without internal stability, it is not possible to form an effective foreign strategy.

A crisis of regional order

The South Caucasus is not experiencing another phase of political changes, but a transitional period of the formation of a new regional order. Not only the ratio of military and political forces is changing, but also the principles of organizing regional security. If recently the issues of settling individual conflicts were in the center of attention, today a new system of regional relations is being formed, which will determine the fate of the South Caucasus in the coming decades.

Azerbaijan seeks to consolidate the results of recent years, turning the military advantage gained into long-term political influence and a new regional reality. Thus, it is no longer about the end of one conflict, but the formation of a new regional hierarchy.

These developments open up unique opportunities for Turkey to implement its centuries-old Great Turan strategy of establishing its influence in the South Caucasus.

At the same time, the changes taking place also affect the interests of other key players in the region. For Russia, the South Caucasus continues to be a part of the strategic security area, where the change in the regional balance directly affects its position in the wider Eurasian context.

It is of fundamental importance for Iran to maintain strategic stability along its northern borders and to prevent the formation of such a regional arrangement that may disturb the established balance of interests.

Thus, it is no longer only about the Armenian-Azerbaijani bilateral conflict, but about the formation of a new regional system where the interests of all the main participants are intertwined. For this very reason, the stability of the future order cannot be ensured solely by the advantage of one side or the logic of military-political dominance.

The history of international relations shows that long-term stability is achieved when the balance of not only forces but also interests is ensured. It is the combination of these factors that creates the prerequisites for the formation of a stable regional security architecture, which can prevent new crises, rather than simply delaying their occurrence. The main question for the future of the South Caucasus is not only which state will have greater influence, but on what principles the new regional order will be built. Will it be based solely on competition for dominance, or on institutional mechanisms that will ensure predictability, mutual security, and accounting for the legitimate interests of all states in the region?

Armenia’s problem is not only the protection of its own sovereignty and national interests. It is no less important to become an active participant in shaping the rules of future regional interaction. In the conditions of the formation of a new regional order, the state that does not participate in the development of these rules will inevitably have to live by the rules set by others. That is why Armenia’s participation in the creation of the future security architecture is no longer a diplomatic choice, but a strategic necessity.

However, the logic of these processes cannot be understood considering the South Caucasus only as an independent region. The order emerging here is part of a larger transformation of the international system, the center of which is shifting more and more clearly to Eurasia.

Global crisis. South Caucasus at the center of Eurasian competition

It is in this wider, Eurasian context that the processes taking place in the South Caucasus should be considered. The formation of the new world order is gradually turning the region into one of the key hubs of competition between the largest power centers. In this new situation, the South Caucasus ceases to be a periphery of world politics, it becomes one of the main epicenters of the developing geopolitical confrontation.

Thus, the ongoing processes in the South Caucasus become an integral part of a wider global competition, where the interests of Russia, Turkey, Iran, the USA, the EU, Great Britain, China, India, the Persian Gulf countries and Israel intersect.

However, turning the region into a platform for competition between major powers does not mean that the states here will inevitably turn into passive observers and objects. The ability of small states to maintain themselves as independent actors in international relations is determined not only by external circumstances, but also by the quality of their own strategy.

From response to strategy

The response to the three strategic crises cannot be limited to separate and isolated measures. Internal stability, regional security and international subjectivity are interrelated elements of a unified state strategy.

National consolidation should be the basis of such a strategy. It is not about eliminating differences, but about restoring a minimal national agreement on the fundamental issues that condition the existence of the state. National reconciliation should not become a compromise reached between different political forces, but a conscious choice of society for the sake of preserving and strengthening Armenian statehood.

It is on this basis that it is possible to clearly formulate the national interest. In modern conditions, it is not limited only to the formal preservation of state sovereignty. National interest includes the state’s ability to ensure the security of citizens, protect national identity, develop human capital, maintain demographic stability, and political subjectivity.

The practical expression of this approach should be the strengthening of strategic autonomy, the ability of a state to independently define its national interests and preserve its freedom of decision-making in a changing international environment. Strategic autonomy does not mean self-isolation. On the contrary, it implies the development of partnership relations based on one’s own national priorities.

The next link of this logic should be the creation of a strategic planning system. The state needs constantly functioning mechanisms of analysis, forecasting and assessment of long-term development scenarios.

In the 21st century, states compete not only in terms of military power or economic resources. The quality of public administration is gaining more and more importance: the ability of state institutions to formulate strategic goals, ensure policy continuity and enjoy public trust. It is this factor that largely determines the stability of the state in the era of international turbulence. Only relying on such an internal basis, Armenia will be able to conduct a foreign policy, which will be based not only on responding to threats, but also on creating new opportunities.

The history of international relations has repeatedly shown that periods of change in the world order have been the period of greatest trials for medium and small states.

However, it is precisely in such times that the quality of state institutions, strategic thinking and the ability of society to come together determine whether they will retain their subjectivity or become objects of others’ decisions.

Conclusion

The history of states proves that difficult periods are not only moments of trial, but also moments of shaping the future. Today, Armenia is in just such a place.

Our country faces not only the problem of overcoming concrete threats. It is no less a profound question whether the Armenian statehood will be able to adapt to the new international environment and maintain its independence in the era of global uncertainty.

History rarely gives states the opportunity to choose the era in which they must survive. However, it always leaves them with one choice: to become the object of others’ decisions or to preserve the ability to create their own future independently. Armenia is facing this choice today.

The answer to this choice will be determined not so much by external circumstances, but by the strategic thinking and consistency of the state’s internal ability to act.

Geography creates limitations, but does not predetermine the fate of the state. The international environment creates challenges, but the quality of Armenian statehood – the ability to unite society, make strategic decisions, protect national interests and maintain strategic autonomy – will become the decisive factor that will determine Armenia’s place and role in the emerging world order.

Ara Ayvazyan
Former Foreign Minister of RA
Founding member of the All-Armenian Council of Diplomats

—