Korkmaz: Armenia’s security concerns persist amid shifting regional balance

Dr. Toros Korkmaz said the shifting balance of power in the Caucasus continues to fuel Armenia’s security concerns.

The balance of power in the Caucasus is undergoing a profound transformation. As Armenia reassesses its long-standing Russia-centered security policy, it is seeking closer ties with Europe and the United States. Political scientist Dr. Toros Korkmaz said this shift has been driven by Russia’s stance during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the new geopolitical realities created by the war in Ukraine. He also assessed for ANF how these regional changes could affect Turkey, Azerbaijan and the Kurdish question.

Korkmaz said the weakening of Russia’s influence has been the defining factor behind the recent transformation in the Caucasus, describing the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War as the turning point. He argued that Russia failed to meet Armenia’s expectations during the war and was unable to play an effective mediating role, allowing Azerbaijan to establish control over Nagorno-Karabakh.

According to Korkmaz, this prompted Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government to move away from a Russia-centered foreign policy and diversify its relations with the European Union, the United States and other Western actors.

Korkmaz added that Pashinyan’s renewed electoral victory demonstrated public support for this foreign policy direction. He also said the prolonged Russia-Ukraine war has further weakened Moscow’s influence in the Caucasus. He said: “Russia has had to devote much of its attention and resources to the Ukrainian front. As a result, its influence in the Caucasus has diminished.”

Russia turned a blind eye to Turkey’s policies

Korkmaz said the relationship that developed between Russia and Turkey during this period was shaped by mutual strategic considerations. He said: “During the Russia-Ukraine war, Moscow wanted Turkey to adopt a more restrained position toward Russia. After all, Turkey is a member of NATO and part of the Western bloc. Russia attached great importance to preventing Turkey from giving full support to Ukraine or becoming a direct security threat.

For that reason, it largely turned a blind eye to Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan during the Armenia-Azerbaijan war. Officers from the Turkish military provided Azerbaijan with substantial technical and military assistance, which had a significant impact on the outcome of the war. Russia’s approach was essentially: ‘You maintain a more limited position on Ukraine, and I will overlook your policies in the Caucasus.’

Pashinyan’s re-election also sent a clear message that Armenia intended to deepen its relations with the European Union and the United States. That, in turn, opened the door to a new period in which Western actors are likely to play a greater role in the Caucasus.”

Assessing Armenia’s recent foreign policy direction, Korkmaz said the country has increasingly prioritized normalization and peace because of its security concerns and the changing regional balance. Korkmaz said:“Armenia has grown weary of war and wants peace. At the same time, it recognizes that Azerbaijan, backed by Turkey and Israel, has become significantly stronger. There are serious concerns that, if another war were to break out today, Azerbaijan would have the upper hand and Armenia’s territorial integrity could come under threat.

Armenia also did not receive the support it expected from Russia in either 2020 or 2023. For many years, it based its foreign and security policy largely on Russia. When those expectations were not met, it began diversifying its foreign policy. By bringing the European Union and the United States more actively into the region, Armenia hopes to increase pressure on both Azerbaijan and Turkey in favor of a peaceful settlement. The Pashinyan government is seeking to offset the security vacuum left by Russia by strengthening ties with Europe and the United States.”

Russia’s influence in Armenia has not disappeared

Korkmaz rejected claims that Russia’s influence in the region has come to an end, arguing that Armenia continues to maintain strong ties with Moscow. He said: “It would not be accurate to say that Russia’s influence in the region has completely disappeared. First of all, Armenia remains economically dependent on Russia. Most of the country’s natural gas is supplied by Russia. In addition, a large number of Armenians live and work in Russia, and that diaspora provides Armenia with significant foreign currency income. Russia also maintains a military presence in Armenia, where it still operates a military base.

The Armenian government, shaped by historical experience, does not want to rely solely on the West for its security. Rather than severing ties with Russia altogether, Pashinyan is seeking to diversify Armenia’s foreign policy. His government’s announcement that it will not withdraw from the Eurasian Economic Union is a clear indication of this. Armenia’s current direction is therefore not one of breaking away from Russia, but of pursuing a more balanced foreign policy among different centers of power.”

There is still a strong pro-Russian opposition in Armenia

Korkmaz also pointed to the balance of forces within Armenian politics, arguing that assessments claiming Russia’s influence has vanished are unrealistic. Although Pashinyan emerged as the winner of the elections, he said, the prime minister did not secure the level of support he had hoped for.

Korkmaz said: “There is still a significant pro-Russian opposition within Armenia. Pashinyan won about 49 percent of the vote. Had the opposition been united, it could have secured support in the range of 35 to 40 percent. That means the political balance could still shift. The Armenian Church, business circles with commercial ties to Russia and parts of the economic elite continue to favor close relations with Moscow. Moreover, a considerable portion of the Armenian diaspora in Europe and the United States does not support Pashinyan. These are influential communities that make important economic contributions to Armenia.

For that reason, I do not believe relations between Armenia and Russia will completely rupture in the coming period.”

Turning to the regional implications of Turkey-Armenia normalization, Korkmaz said diplomatic progress is expected to lead to the reopening of border crossings and the restoration of railway connections. He argued that normalization could create significant economic opportunities for both countries and said: “Trade relations will expand. Turkey is an important market for Armenia. Likewise, Turkey could gain easier access to Central Asia through Armenia. Border cities such as Kars, Iğdır, Ağrı and Doğubayazıt could experience greater economic activity. A revival of tourism around Mount Ağrı (Ararat) is also among the possible outcomes of this process.”

The democratic Kurdish movement has made important progress over the past 15 years

Korkmaz said normalization would have not only economic but also social consequences, emphasizing the importance of strengthening relations between peoples. He said: “The opening of the borders will help people get to know one another more closely. In particular, the democratic Kurdish movement has made important progress on the Armenian issue over the past 15 years. One example was the parliamentary motion submitted by Sebahat Tuncel in 2013, followed by statements from figures within the Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP).

A significant part of the Kurdish population in the region views Armenians with sympathy. This could provide a positive basis for expanding dialogue and increasing contact between the two peoples.”

Pashinyan has adopted a more open approach to minority cultural rights

Korkmaz also addressed Armenia’s internal transformation, saying the Pashinyan government has taken a more liberal approach to minority rights than previous administrations. Korkmaz said: “Although their numbers are small, the Pashinyan government has created greater space for minorities to preserve their identities and develop their cultural rights. This reflects Pashinyan’s more liberal and democratic political orientation. If the normalization process with Turkey produces positive results, its impact will extend beyond the economy to cultural and social life.

Greater contact between peoples could encourage cultural exchange, strengthen pluralism and, in the long run, reduce mutual distrust.”

Armenia’s security concerns will persist

Korkmaz stressed that Armenia’s security concerns would not disappear even if the normalization process advances, arguing that Azerbaijan and Turkey approach the issue from a more pragmatic perspective. He said: “Armenia views this process primarily as a search for lasting peace and security because it understands the consequences another war could bring. Turkey and Azerbaijan, on the other hand, appear to approach the issue more pragmatically and through the lens of geopolitical interests. For that reason, even if normalization moves forward, it would not be accurate to say that Armenia’s security concerns have disappeared.”

The ruling bloc views peace through the lens of the Turan ideology

Korkmaz also criticized the Turkish government’s approach, concluding: “The official state ideology and the ruling political bloc approach this issue from a different perspective. Devlet Bahçeli’s recent description of the Zangezur Corridor as the ‘Turan Corridor’ (a Pan-Turkic geopolitical concept) is one example. Pan-Turkism remains one of the ideological currents that continues to influence the Turkish state tradition, and its traces are visible within today’s ruling bloc.

For that reason, I believe some circles view Turkey-Armenia normalization not only as a process of peace and cooperation but also through the broader geopolitical objectives associated with the idea of Turan.”

By Eurasianet

Takeaways

• Russia Seeks Reconciliation — After failing to undermine Nikol Pashinyan’s reelection, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin urged Armenia to reset bilateral relations on a positive footing during Pashinyan’s visit to Yekaterinburg on July 6.
• Russian Conditions — Moscow called for protection of Russian investors’ interests and warned that Armenia’s EAEU membership is incompatible with its EU aspirations, demanding clarity on Yerevan’s geopolitical direction.
• Pashinyan’s Cautious Stance — The Armenian prime minister expressed interest in keeping EAEU mechanisms functional and resolving issues constructively, while keeping options open and avoiding major concessions.

(Eurasianet) — After mounting an unsuccessful campaign to sink Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s reelection chances, Russia is now telling him that it is time to bury the hatchet.

Pashinyan traveled to the Siberian city of Yekaterinburg, where on July 6 he met his Russian counterpart, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. After the meeting, Mishustin voiced hope that bilateral relations, which have taken a nosedive in recent years amid Armenia’s geopolitical pivot westwards, can get back on an even keel. 

In effect, Mishustin asked Pashinyan to forget about all the dirty tricks and disinformation that Russia deployed against him during the recent parliamentary election campaign, which nonetheless ended with a decisive victory for the Armenian prime minister’s Civil Contract party. 

“We hope that the new government… will ensure the progressive development of Russian-Armenian relations in the spirit of friendship, good neighborliness, mutual respect and consideration of mutual interests,” the Gazeta.ru news outlet quoted Mishustin as saying.

If Mishustin’s comments were intended as an olive branch, they contained some thorns.

The Armenpress news agency indicated that the Russian prime minister issued a tacit warning to Pashinyan, calling on Yerevan to “maintain a favorable environment for Russian investors” and protect their “legitimate interests.” 

Pashinyan’s response was muted, with the clear intent of keeping his options open.

“We are interested in our participation in the Eurasian Economic Union [EAEU], and we are interested in ensuring that the mechanisms envisaged by the EAEU Treaty function as intended,” Armenpress quoted Pashinyan as saying. 

“We are committed to a constructive approach to discussing and clarifying all issues and nuances. I hope that following today’s talks we will be able to resolve specific issues,” he added.

A major source of bilateral friction revolves around Armenia’s EAEU membership, which Russian officials contend is incompatible with Yerevan’s recent efforts to gain European Union membership. Moscow insists that Armenia can’t be a member of both and has called on the Armenian leadership to choose. With EU membership a distant prospect, Pashinyan has said there’s no need to make an immediate choice.

As part of its campaign to undermine Pashinyan’s government during the run-up to the parliamentary election campaign, Russia imposed import bans on a variety of Armenian food products. 

States do not recognize genocides because they have suddenly discovered a moral conscience. They do so when it aligns with their political, strategic, diplomatic, or domestic interests.

The Israeli government’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide has generated mixed reactions in the public sphere around the world and in Armenia itself.

Some have welcomed the decision, while others have argued that a government itself widely accused of committing crimes against humanity in Gaza lacks the moral authority to recognize another people’s genocide, suggesting that Israel is even exploiting the issue for gain. 

While I understand the criticism, it rests on a fundamentally flawed understanding of geopolitics.

States do not recognize genocides because they have suddenly discovered a moral conscience. They do so when it aligns with their political, strategic, diplomatic, or domestic interests.

International relations have never been governed by moral idealism but by realpolitik. If morality were the driving force behind statecraft, genocides would not have occurred in the first place, nor would governments have ignored or enabled them whenever it suited their interests.

The notion that recognition of the Armenian Genocide is – or has ever been – a purely moral act is a comforting illusion.

Most states that have recognized the Armenian Genocide have not done so solely out of moral conviction, without domestic lobbying, geopolitical calculations, electoral considerations, or strategic interests.

Every recognition has taken place within a political context. Israel is no exception, and that does not detract from finally doing the right thing.

It is also important to note that while successive Israeli governments refused to recognize the genocide for decades, it was the Armenian National Committee of Jerusalem (ANCJ), together with several Israeli scholars and public figures and academic organizations such as the Zoryan Institute, that sustained the campaign for recognition. 

They devoted a huge effort to educating Israeli society, lobbying decision-makers, and ensuring that the Armenian Genocide did not disappear from the Israeli national conversation.

Considering that, the Israeli government should, as part of the recognition, also have taken concrete steps to address the terrible conditions faced by the Armenian community in east Jerusalem.

Its several thousand members continue to experience discrimination and harassment from ultra-nationalist Jewish groups. Incidents such as spitting on clergy, verbal abuse, and the desecration of sacred sites have become part of the daily reality for many Armenians.

The climate of impunity surrounding these acts has turned such groups into an existential threat to the Armenian community of Jerusalem.

This raises an important question: recognition without meaningful measures to protect a vulnerable minority is little more than ink on paper. This pattern has been evident in many cases of genocide recognition.

Genocide acknowledgment without a genuine commitment to prevention is ultimately of limited value.

Recognition must go hand-in-hand with action

Israel was directly or indirectly complicit in the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians of Artsakh (known in Israel and elsewhere as Nagorno-Karabakh) through its extensive military cooperation with Azerbaijan. 

Some estimates suggest that Israel supplied approximately 70% of Azerbaijan’s arms imports between 2016 and 2020. Haaretz, for example, reported that 92 Azerbaijani military cargo flights landed at Israel’s Ovda Air Base between 2016 and 2020. 

During this period, Azerbaijan acquired a wide range of Israeli military equipment, including intelligence-gathering drones, Hermes UAVs, Harop loitering munitions (“kamikaze drones”), Spike anti-tank missiles, ATMOS self-propelled artillery systems, Cardom mortars, Barak air defense missiles, Searcher and Heron drones, naval patrol vessels, and Typhoon weapon stations.

Equally troubling is the fact that many states that formally recognized the Armenian Genocide failed to take meaningful measures to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Artsakh.

Despite their official recognition of the genocide of 1915, they did not impose significant sanctions on Azerbaijan or take other effective steps to deter the forced displacement of the Armenian population.

As a result, Armenians were uprooted from their historical homeland in Artsakh and continued to witness the destruction of their cultural heritage in territories they inhabited for centuries, all in full view of states that had previously acknowledged the Armenian Genocide. 

This raises a fundamental question: What is the value of genocide recognition if it is not accompanied by a commitment to prevent similar crimes against vulnerable communities?

Since the 19th century, the Armenian question has too often become a pawn in international politics, with the so-called “civilized world” invoking it selectively to advance geopolitical interests rather than consistently defending the rights and security of the Armenian people.

Recognition, if it is to have genuine moral significance, must be accompanied by concrete action to prevent persecution, protect vulnerable populations, and uphold international law.

The writer was born and raised in the Old City of Jerusalem. A Guggenheim Fellow, he is professor of Modern Middle East history and Hymen Rosenberg Professor in Judaic Studies at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-901437

Neil Hauer

Russia still displeased while grappling with reality.

Jul 7, 2026

After mounting an unsuccessful campaign to sink Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s reelection chances, Russia is now telling him that it is time to bury the hatchet.

Pashinyan traveled to the Siberian city of Yekaterinburg, where on July 6 he met his Russian counterpart, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. After the meeting, Mishustin voiced hope that bilateral relations, which have taken a nosedive in recent years amid Armenia’s geopolitical pivot westwards, can get back on an even keel. 

In effect, Mishustin asked Pashinyan to forget about all the dirty tricks and disinformation that Russia deployed against him during the recent parliamentary election campaign, which nonetheless ended with a decisive victory for the Armenian prime minister’s Civil Contract party. 

“We hope that the new government… will ensure the progressive development of Russian-Armenian relations in the spirit of friendship, good neighborliness, mutual respect and consideration of mutual interests,” the Gazeta.ru news outlet quoted Mishustin as saying.

If Mishustin’s comments were intended as an olive branch, they contained some thorns.

The Armenpress news agency indicated that the Russian prime minister issued a tacit warning to Pashinyan, calling on Yerevan to “maintain a favorable environment for Russian investors” and protect their “legitimate interests.” 

Pashinyan’s response was muted, with the clear intent of keeping his options open.

“We are interested in our participation in the Eurasian Economic Union [EAEU], and we are interested in ensuring that the mechanisms envisaged by the EAEU Treaty function as intended,” Armenpress quoted Pashinyan as saying. 

“We are committed to a constructive approach to discussing and clarifying all issues and nuances. I hope that following today’s talks we will be able to resolve specific issues,” he added.

A major source of bilateral friction revolves around Armenia’s EAEU membership, which Russian officials contend is incompatible with Yerevan’s recent efforts to gain European Union membership. Moscow insists that Armenia can’t be a member of both and has called on the Armenian leadership to choose. With EU membership a distant prospect, Pashinyan has said there’s no need to make an immediate choice.

As part of its campaign to undermine Pashinyan’s government during the run-up to the parliamentary election campaign, Russia imposed import bans on a variety of Armenian food products. 

https://eurasianet.org/pashinyan-travels-to-russia-searches-for-solid-ground-for-armenian-russian-relations