By Luna Thomsen

Yerevan – Armenia is at a crossroad, yet again. The streets of its capital city, Yerevan, buzz with debate and contradictions, while political circles and academic halls echo with the weight of one central question: How can Armenia secure its future? 

Armenia but is a small country of just about 2.8 million people caught between massive powers, and many outsiders frame the debate as a simple choice – Russia or the West. 

But for Armenians themselves, few will say that the issue is black-and-white. With the current situation, it’s not about loyalty or ideology; it’s about survival. 

“This is not the right time to choose sides,” says Tigran Hovhannisyan, director of the Independent Centre for Defence Studies (ICDS) and a former colonel in the Armenian army. “Our priority should be finding some form of stability. That’s the only way forward right now. We need to secure our sovereignty, and we need to put food on people’s tables.”

The challenge, however, is defining what “stability” means – and how to achieve it – in a region connecting the East and the West, and where history and geopolitics therefore often collide. Armenia’s leaders face a fragile balancing act: seeking new alliances while holding on to old ones, in trying to establish peace without compromising sovereignty. 

The geopolitical map

Armenia’s geography has always been both its curse and its fortune. Landlocked and precariously positioned at the intersection of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, it is surrounded by neighbours with power and big ambitions.  

Turkey lies to the west, Azerbaijan to the east, Iran to the south, and Georgia to the North – with Russia just on the other side of Georgia. 

Both Turkey and Azerbaijan have historically viewed Armenia with hostility, and the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war exposed just how vulnerable Armenia’s position has become. 

The 2020 war was a turning point for Armenia. Azerbaijan, with support from Turkey, reclaimed territory held by Armenians since the 1990s. For Armenians, the losses were devastating – not only in terms of land but also for Armenian’s sense of security. Tens of thousands of Armenians were displaced, and the country’s trust in its allies was challenged. Moscow’s inaction during the conflict left many Armenians with little to no trust in their lang time ally and – some would say – guardian. 

 “Until the early 1990s, there was a near-universal belief in Russia’s unwavering commitment to Armenia,” says Professor Vahram Ter-Matevosyan, lector at the department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the American University of Armenia.

 “That belief has been proven disastrously wrong. Russia’s geopolitical priorities have changed, and Armenia must come to terms with that.”

Prime minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government emerged from this crisis with clear message: Armenia must diversify its alliances and can no longer be over-reliant on any one alliance. Over the past few years, Pashinyan has sought to strengthen ties with the European Union and the United States, while also exploring new alliances with countries like India. 

As part of this approach, the government has ratified the Rome Statute (ICC) – meaning, in theory, the Russian president Vladimir Putin could risk being arrested should he step foot on Armenian territory, they have declared that Armenia’s membership in the Russian-led military alliance the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is  “frozen”, they have declined a Russian monitoring mission at the Armenian-Azerbaijani border – and instead it has welcomed a European Union (EU) -led civil monitoring mission – and they are pushing to remove all Russian military at Armenian borders. 

Yet, this approach has sparked intense debate within Armenia. 

Critics argue that cutting ties with Russia – or even weakening them – could be disastrous. Russia remains Armenia’s largest trading partner and its primary source of natural gas. In 2023 around 80% of Armenia’s gas supply came from Russia. Therefore, this question is posed by many; Can Armenia really afford to pivot away from Russia right now?

According to former army coronal Tigran Hovhannisyan, the balancing act is precarious. 

“We are surrounded by two hostile powers with interest in our territory. Without a reliable, and powerful, ally, Armenia could disappear altogether. If the government want new alliances, it has to walk a very fine line – strengthening partnerships without burning bridges.”

Between history and pragmatism 

To understand Armenia’s dilemma, we must look past the current situation, and into its past – a history of near-constant threats to its territory and its people.

The current tension reflects more than just nostalgia and unwillingness to let go of the past; it’s a debate about Armenia’s identity and priorities. Should the country look back to its historical roots, which emphasize its Christian heritage and centuries-long struggle for survival? Or should it focus on its present-day geopolitical realities and diplomatic pragmatism?  

“There is a dichotomy between ‘historical Armenia’ and ‘present-day Armenia. The government is trying to shift this narrative, encouraging Armenians to focus on the current reality rather than historical aspirations. While pragmatic, this approach has alienated those who remain deeply connected to the idea of historical Armenia.” argues Professor Ter-Matevosyen. 

According to Professor Ter-Matevosyan, when trying to understand the Armenian debate, it is important to remember, that Russia’s presence in South Caucasus is relatively new in the grand sweep of history.

“People often downplay how much older the influence of Turks, Persians, and Iranians is in the region compared to the Russians. The Caucasus has always been contested, and Russia’s dominance here is just another chapter, not the whole story.”. 

That chapter, however, has come at a cost. For decades, Armenians believed Russia would never allow Azerbaijan or Turkey to act against Armenia. Professor Ter-Matevosyan calls this “a grand strategic error”. 

“The assumption that Russia would always protect Armenia was naïve – it’s about education, and we’ve now paid the price,” he argues. 

Education, influence, and the great divide 

The debate over Armenia’s alliances isn’t just about foreign policy – it’s about education, too. At least according to Serob Khachatyan, professor at the Faculty of Philosophy and Psychology at Yerevan State University and former Executive Director at the Children of Armenia Fund. He argues that way Armenians learn about their history and their place in the world has a profound influence on how they view Russia and the West. 

During the Soviet era, education was dominated by Russian language and culture. Generations of Armenians studied in Russian universities and built careers shaped by Moscow’s influence. 

That legacy persists today, particularly among older generations and segments of the academic elite. 

But in recent years, Armenia’s education system has begun to change. New reforms emphasize English as a second language – though Russian remains mandatory – critical thinking, and democratic values. And thought Professor Khachatyan argues that these new reforms are lacking in many ways, he still sees this shift as part of a larger societal transformation – and a source of conflict. 

“The education system reflects Armenia’s larger dilemma,” Khachatryan says. “It’s not just about language or curriculum. It’s about shaping Armenia’s worldview. Are we a country that sees its future tied to Russia, or are we part of Europe? The way we educate young people will shape that decision.”

Yet, even as reforms move in a more western direction, Russian influence remains strong. Russian language, cultural ties, and economic connections all reinforce the idea that Armenia cannot simply walk away from its alliance with Moscow. For some Armenians, it might be a matter of identification or even nostalgia – but for most, it is a matter of survival. 

Choosing security, not sides

Armenia’s dilemma is far more nuanced than it might appear to those looking in from the outside. Western observers often frame it as a choice: East versus West, democracy versus autocracy. But this oversimplifies a much deeper and more painful reality. 

The truth is that Armenia doesn’t have the luxury of making bold ideological choices given the current situation, former army colonel Tigran Hovhannisyan argues. It’s a small state, locked between regional powers, with a long history of being left behind – a history that includes genocide, war, and the constant struggle to define its borders. For many Armenians, this history provides a profound sense of instability – and a belief that no one, apart from Armenians themselves, has a vested interest in Armenia’s survival. 

“We can’t think in absolutes,” says Hovhannisyan. “Armenia’s priority has to be securing peace and stability—one way or the other. If we don’t, there might not be an Armenia to argue about.”

The government’s efforts to diversify alliances – whether through European partnerships, Indian defense deals, or normalization processes with Turkey and Azerbaijan – reflect this urgency. 

Yet, the debate on whether this is the right way to secure the country rages on, exposing deeper societal divisions over Armenia’s past, its identity, and its place in the world.