Armenia’s long-discussed strategic foreign policy reorientation has now entered the public stage. According to political scientist Arman Grigoryan, what was once only an aspiration of the country’s leadership became a clearly defined political course after the escalation of the war in Ukraine. Today, Yerevan openly acknowledges its geopolitical shift.
Grigoryan argues that Armenia’s ruling elite views the country’s long-standing dependence on Russia and the resulting limitations on its sovereignty as its principal strategic problem. However, he believes that while Armenia seeks closer ties with the West and Europe, it must also recognize that Europe itself is engaged in a broader confrontation with Russia.
Realpolitik and Existential Risks
Supporters of Armenia’s geopolitical reorientation argue that diversification is based on shared values, creates new opportunities, and allows the country to move beyond its traditional dependence on Russia.
Grigoryan, however, believes the process carries significant risks.
According to him, Moscow considers any Western military or political expansion into the former Soviet space an unacceptable threat to its core strategic interests.
He emphasizes that this assessment is not about judging Russia’s position but about recognizing the realities that shape its behavior.
The central question, he argues, is whether Armenia possesses sufficient instruments to balance the risks created by this strategic shift.
Will Moscow Accept the New Reality?
Many supporters of Armenia’s Western orientation argue that recent European initiatives have weakened Russia’s ability to pressure Yerevan.
Grigoryan disagrees, pointing to the logic of escalation in international conflicts.
“When a major power loses the effectiveness of its moderate pressure tools, it is often left with two choices: retreat or resort to more forceful measures,” he said.
According to the political scientist, it would be unrealistic to assume that Russia will simply accept such developments.
He notes that Moscow was prepared to wage a full-scale war against Ukraine and previously used military force against Georgia.
For that reason, he argues that claims suggesting Russia would refrain from stronger actions toward Armenia require much stronger evidence than has been presented so far.
Security Guarantees Remain the Main Challenge
Even under the most optimistic scenario, in which Russia gradually reduces its regional role, Grigoryan does not believe Armenia’s security challenges would automatically disappear.
He notes that fundamental disputes with neighboring countries remain unresolved.
Although he acknowledges criticism of the Armenian-Russian alliance and the CSTO, he argues that abandoning the existing security framework without a comparable replacement would leave Armenia considerably more vulnerable.
According to Grigoryan, while Europe may be able to offset part of Russia’s economic pressure, expecting similar guarantees in the security sphere is unrealistic.
“Expecting the West to build a new security architecture for Armenia or provide genuine security guarantees belongs more to the realm of political fairy tales,” he concluded.