The security challenges facing Armenia cannot be understood or resolved by examining isolated documents or election-driven rhetoric. This is the view of political analyst Stepan Danielyan. According to him, these issues must be considered within the context of profound changes currently reshaping international politics, particularly against the backdrop of a sharp transformation in United States policy.
Will the United States Become Armenia’s Security Guarantor
The fundamental question, Danielyan argues, is whether the United States can realistically assume the role of Armenia’s security guarantor. The current authorities are attempting, within the logic of an election campaign, to present the so-called TRIPP program, which is planned to pass through Syunik, as an opportunity for security and economic prosperity.
This is happening at a time when Azerbaijan and Turkey are openly threatening the prospect of seizing Syunik. There are not only opinions but also data indicating that Azerbaijan was preparing to open a route to Nakhichevan by military means. Armenia’s authorities managed to involve the United States in this process and present it as a serious step toward ensuring security.
Danielyan recalls the document recently signed in Washington. One of its key provisions, he notes, is the absence of any legal guarantees. In other words, the United States assumes no legal obligations regarding Armenia’s security.
At the same time, the state apparatus has begun taking certain steps within the framework of this program, including in customs, taxation, and other areas. There is also a view that the main actions are planned for the period after the elections, if the current authorities remain in power. However, the central question remains unanswered: in the event of an external threat, particularly from Azerbaijan and Turkey, will the United States take on any real commitments?
Trump’s Policy Is Not an Accident
To answer this question, Danielyan argues, one must understand the nature of contemporary U.S. policy. Many perceive Donald Trump as an eccentric and accidental phenomenon, assuming that after a change of power the United States will return to its previous course. According to Danielyan, this approach is fundamentally flawed.
Trump’s policy is not accidental. It is based on a clear ideological and strategic document — Project 2025 — developed by American right-wing conservative think tanks. The program was drafted in 2022, published in 2023, and widely discussed during the 2024 U.S. election process.
Danielyan emphasizes that Trump is implementing precisely the points outlined in Project 2025. Several hundred highly qualified experts participated in its development, including 144 senior officials from Trump’s first administration. In the political analyst’s view, this document was prepared by what is often referred to as the U.S. “deep state.”
Domestic Transformation as the Basis of Foreign Policy
One of the core elements of Project 2025 is the radical transformation of domestic policy. The plan envisions strengthening the presidential apparatus while weakening dependence on the judiciary, intelligence agencies, and Congress. According to Danielyan, what is currently happening in the United States reflects the direct implementation of this program, and many American experts are already warning that constitutional balance has been undermined.
A second major direction involves a shift in the value system. Emphasis is placed on the traditional family model, access to abortion is restricted, and policies toward the LGBTQ community are revised. It was no coincidence that Trump declared immediately after taking office that only two genders exist in the United States: male and female.
Moreover, the role of religion and religious communities is increasing. Trump’s electoral victory was largely secured through the support of Protestant churches, whose voter base is estimated at around 25 million people.
Rejection of International Institutions and the Politics of Power
One of the most significant proposals in Project 2025 is the withdrawal of the United States from international organizations established after World War II and the abandonment of ideological confrontation. Instead, foreign policy is to be built purely on interests and power, following the logic of realpolitik.
According to Danielyan, this approach is already becoming reality. The United States is withdrawing from dozens of international institutions, and even the existence of the UN and NATO is being called into question. The U.S. president openly states that only American interests matter in international relations.
There are numerous examples. Venezuela’s oil may not be used by the United States, but it will not be allowed to be used by any other country either. Greenland must come under U.S. control simply because it “has to.” The Western Hemisphere is declared a U.S. security zone.
A New World Order Based on the Pre-1914 Model
Under these conditions, Danielyan argues, the world has returned to a model that existed before 1914, prior to World War I. At that time, global politics were dominated by a handful of great powers competing for colonies and resources.
The same logic applies today. There is a struggle for energy resources, rare earth metals, and spheres of influence. In order to preserve the petrodollar, the United States seeks to control global energy resources.
In such an environment, the factor of power becomes decisive. As the president of Azerbaijan has stated, international relations no longer function — only power does.
The Dilemma of Small States: Armenia’s Choice
In this new world order, Danielyan says, small states face three options, of which only two are viable. A small state can preserve its independence only if a balance of power exists among major powers. If that balance is disrupted, small states lose their sovereignty.
The third option is to enter the sphere of influence of a major power, accepting limited sovereignty.
Today, global competition among major powers is intensifying, and small countries are confronted with a fundamental question: which sphere of influence do you belong to, and can you preserve your state institutions?
The Choice Facing Armenia
Danielyan cites two examples from the post-Soviet space. Ukraine could have become a balancing state between Russia and the West and benefited from that position. Instead, it chose the path of confrontation and has become a battlefield.
The second example is Georgia. It too was pressured to make a choice, but the country’s leadership, recognizing international trends, resisted that pressure and opted for a balancing approach.
Today, according to Stepan Danielyan, Armenia stands before the same choice. Security cannot be built on election documents, value-based rhetoric, or policies rooted in a collapsing international order.
“Small states either disappear or enter someone’s sphere of influence. A third option simply does not exist,” the political analyst concludes.