The question of orientation remains a central issue in Armenia’s political discourse. In the context of political parties and public debates, one of the key challenges is determining Armenia’s place in international relations and whether orientation plays a decisive role in the country’s security and development. According to political scientist Stepan Danielyan, the concept of orientation is often misunderstood, which hinders the adoption of rational political decisions.
The Issue of Orientation in Armenia’s Political Landscape
In Armenia’s political discourse, the question of orientation frequently sparks heated debates. Some argue that Armenia must choose a clear alignment—be it pro-Western, pro-Russian, or, for instance, pro-Iranian. Danielyan notes that a significant portion of Armenian citizens believe countries like Iran or Russia can guarantee Armenia’s security. However, he argues that such thinking is rooted in unrealistic expectations. Orientation cannot be an end in itself, and international relations are not built on friendship or morality.
Danielyan emphasizes that morality is almost absent in international relations. He cites former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who stressed that international politics is driven by interests, not moral principles. For example, during the Iraq War, the U.S. supported the Kurds but left them without protection once the conflict ended, illustrating the primacy of interests in global affairs.
The Balance of Power Theory and Armenia’s Regional Role
A core part of Danielyan’s analysis revolves around the balance of power theory. He highlights several key principles that govern international relations.
- Balancing and Containment: One of the fundamental principles of the balance of power is balancing, where states seek to prevent any single state from achieving dominance. For instance, the growing influence of Turkey and Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus compels Georgia to seek counterweights to balance regional power dynamics.
- Preventing Hegemony: When one country becomes excessively powerful, it poses a threat to others, even if it has no expansionist intentions. Danielyan points out that Armenia’s defeat in the Second Karabakh War disrupted the regional balance of power in favor of Azerbaijan and Turkey.
- Dynamic Equilibrium: International relations are dynamic, and alliances can shift depending on the distribution of power. A country that is an ally today may become a rival tomorrow if its influence grows too strong.
- Formation of Alliances: When a state cannot prevent another’s hegemony alone, alliances emerge. Danielyan references the creation of NATO as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union or the alliances formed against Germany during World War II.
The Problem of Armenia’s Lack of a Regional Role
According to Danielyan, one of Armenia’s main challenges is the absence of a clear regional role. States survive as long as they fulfill a specific function in international relations. Without such a role, Armenia’s existence as a state could be at risk. He cites Yugoslavia as an example, which was created to counterbalance Germany but lost its relevance after the Soviet Union’s collapse and subsequently disintegrated.
In Armenia’s case, its establishment was tied to Russia’s entry into the region, positioning Armenia as a counterweight to the Ottoman Empire and Persia. However, with the regional balance of power now shifted, Armenia must redefine its role. Danielyan stresses that the growing power of Turkey and Azerbaijan poses significant challenges for Armenia, and without a clear role, the country risks losing its significance.
How Does Armenia Engage with Regional Players?
Armenia’s policy must be grounded in realism. Danielyan raises the question: how does Armenia interact with Turkey, Iran, or Russia? How does it define its interests, and in what language does it negotiate? He notes that since the 2018 change of government, Armenia has attempted to revise its foreign policy, but these efforts have often been based on emotions or unrealistic expectations.
For example, Iran may support Armenia due to its own interests in countering the influence of Turkey and NATO. However, Armenia must clarify what role it plays for Iran. Similarly, relations with Russia or the West should be built not on friendship but on mutual interests.
Regional Role and Balance of Power
The question of orientation remains a central issue in Armenia’s political discourse. In the context of political parties and public debates, one of the key challenges is determining Armenia’s place in international relations and whether orientation plays a decisive role in the country’s security and development. According to political scientist Stepan Danielyan, the concept of orientation is often misunderstood, which hinders the adoption of rational political decisions.
The Issue of Orientation in Armenia’s Political Landscape
In Armenia’s political discourse, the question of orientation frequently sparks heated debates. Some argue that Armenia must choose a clear alignment—be it pro-Western, pro-Russian, or, for instance, pro-Iranian. Danielyan notes that a significant portion of Armenian citizens believe countries like Iran or Russia can guarantee Armenia’s security. However, he argues that such thinking is rooted in unrealistic expectations. Orientation cannot be an end in itself, and international relations are not built on friendship or morality.
Danielyan emphasizes that morality is almost absent in international relations. He cites former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who stressed that international politics is driven by interests, not moral principles. For example, during the Iraq War, the U.S. supported the Kurds but left them without protection once the conflict ended, illustrating the primacy of interests in global affairs.
The Balance of Power Theory and Armenia’s Regional Role
A core part of Danielyan’s analysis revolves around the balance of power theory. He highlights several key principles that govern international relations.
- Balancing and Containment: One of the fundamental principles of the balance of power is balancing, where states seek to prevent any single state from achieving dominance. For instance, the growing influence of Turkey and Azerbaijan in the South Caucasus compels Georgia to seek counterweights to balance regional power dynamics.
- Preventing Hegemony: When one country becomes excessively powerful, it poses a threat to others, even if it has no expansionist intentions. Danielyan points out that Armenia’s defeat in the Second Karabakh War disrupted the regional balance of power in favor of Azerbaijan and Turkey.
- Dynamic Equilibrium: International relations are dynamic, and alliances can shift depending on the distribution of power. A country that is an ally today may become a rival tomorrow if its influence grows too strong.
- Formation of Alliances: When a state cannot prevent another’s hegemony alone, alliances emerge. Danielyan references the creation of NATO as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union or the alliances formed against Germany during World War II.
The Problem of Armenia’s Lack of a Regional Role
According to Danielyan, one of Armenia’s main challenges is the absence of a clear regional role. States survive as long as they fulfill a specific function in international relations. Without such a role, Armenia’s existence as a state could be at risk. He cites Yugoslavia as an example, which was created to counterbalance Germany but lost its relevance after the Soviet Union’s collapse and subsequently disintegrated.
In Armenia’s case, its establishment was tied to Russia’s entry into the region, positioning Armenia as a counterweight to the Ottoman Empire and Persia. However, with the regional balance of power now shifted, Armenia must redefine its role. Danielyan stresses that the growing power of Turkey and Azerbaijan poses significant challenges for Armenia, and without a clear role, the country risks losing its significance.
How Does Armenia Engage with Regional Players?
Armenia’s policy must be grounded in realism. Danielyan raises the question: how does Armenia interact with Turkey, Iran, or Russia? How does it define its interests, and in what language does it negotiate? He notes that since the 2018 change of government, Armenia has attempted to revise its foreign policy, but these efforts have often been based on emotions or unrealistic expectations.
For example, Iran may support Armenia due to its own interests in countering the influence of Turkey and NATO. However, Armenia must clarify what role it plays for Iran. Similarly, relations with Russia or the West should be built not on friendship but on mutual interests.