It is often argued in Armenia that the country is so important to Russia that Moscow will not take steps against Armenia or abandon the Republic of Armenia. This reasoning assumes that Armenia can use its importance as leverage in negotiations with Russia.
According to negotiation specialist Artur Martirosyan, when discussing the interests of Armenia and Russia, the problem is that the Armenian side frequently relies on its own assumptions about what Russia’s interests should be.
“The assessments being voiced are based on potential long-term interests and consequences. Meanwhile, those making decisions in Russia, unfortunately, associate their understanding of their interests with short-term commercial benefits,” Martirosyan said.
According to him, Armenia’s importance to Russia is usually substantiated through long-term strategic arguments. For example, if Russia loses Armenia, it could also lose the South Caucasus and, subsequently, the North Caucasus. “This is a very long-term calculation. All of this may be well founded, but it is not persuasive to the Russian officials with whom the Armenian side conducts its dialogue,” he noted.
A Different Perception of Armenia Was Taking Shape in Moscow
According to Martirosyan, contrary to these long-term perceptions of Armenia’s importance, the Turkish-Azerbaijani lobby had for years promoted the idea in Moscow that Russia should abandon Armenia.
“They managed to appear more convincing,” he said. According to Martirosyan, the argument advanced by these circles was that Armenia had become an inconvenient burden for Russia — a suitcase without a handle: Russia incurred expenses in Armenia, while Armenia, they claimed, would move toward Europe in any event.
Martirosyan said the Armenian side was mistaken in assuming that Moscow’s attitude would not change because Russia’s interests in Armenia were long-term. “However, those perceptions were wrong. In reality, it is first necessary to assess how Russia understands its own interests, rather than insist on what those interests are based on your own perception and build your policy around that perception,” he noted.
“When you have mistaken expectations, you naturally become disappointed. But if you are realistic, you understand what interests they have and begin working with that perception in mind. This concerns not only coinciding interests but also interests that may even conflict. You have to work with those interests as well,” he said.
Negotiation Is Not Merely Mutual Bargaining
According to Martirosyan, this raises the question of what Armenia can offer Russia. He believes there is also an excessively simplified understanding of negotiations in relation to this issue. “People who regard negotiations solely as bargaining — we give something and receive something in return — have a very simplistic understanding of the negotiation process,” he said.
Martirosyan noted that a negotiator’s opportunities are much broader, since it is possible not only to identify something that can be exchanged but also to expand the range of potential benefits available to the parties. “A negotiator always has greater opportunities when you enlarge the pie and broaden the range of proposals,” he said.
In this case, it is necessary to understand what is especially important to the other side at that particular moment and whether Armenia can satisfy that interest in a way that no one else can offer. “I can satisfy an interest that is very important to them — an interest of today, not of the future — in a way that no one else can,” Martirosyan noted.