A government endorsed by Armenia’s enemies is not sovereign

2026-02-03 - 12:56

Three months after Armenia’s disastrous defeat in the 2020 Artsakh War, Onik Gasparyan, then chief of the General Staff of the Armenian Armed Forces, joined dozens of senior military officers in issuing a statement calling for Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to resign, asserting that the government was no longer capable of making decisions in the country’s best interests. The extraordinary public rebuke of civilian leadership marked a rare moment in Armenia’s post-Soviet history. At the time, many observers expected the political crisis to escalate further, with speculation that elements of the military could align with demonstrators demanding Pashinyan’s resignation. That escalation never materialized. The prime minister denounced the statement as an attempted coup, and the standoff ultimately ended with the dismissal of Gasparyan, followed by snap elections later that year. Fast forward to January 2026, when Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan publicly stated that Ankara “sincerely supports” Prime Minister Pashinyan’s leadership and expressed hope that it would be maintained ahead of Armenia’s upcoming elections. When the foreign minister of Turkey publicly expresses support for Armenia’s sitting prime minister during an election cycle — while Ankara simultaneously coordinates with Azerbaijan on demands involving Armenian sovereign territory — the issue is no longer confined to internal politics or governance. It raises questions about the degree to which Armenian political authority is being shaped, validated or constrained by a hostile foreign power. This is not neutral diplomacy. It is open political signaling by a state that remains in fundamental conflict with Armenia’s historical memory, security interests and territorial integrity. This amounted to a direct political endorsement by a state that perpetrated the Armenian Genocide and that, together with Azerbaijan, enabled and supported the forced displacement of Artsakh’s Armenian population between 2020 and 2023. No sovereign Armenian government should ever derive legitimacy from overt political support from Turkey. Yet this is precisely what has occurred. Turkey is not a neutral actor. It is the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, which carried out the Armenian Genocide — a historical fact recognized by scholars and numerous states, but denied by Ankara. Azerbaijan is, likewise, not a neutral neighbor. With Turkish military, diplomatic and intelligence support, it carried out the military destruction and depopulation of Artsakh. Together, these two states represent Armenia’s primary external security threats. Any Armenian administration that draws political validation or endurance from them cannot credibly claim independence. Fidan’s remarks were not isolated. In the same press conference, he repeatedly used the term “Zangezur Corridor,” language popularized by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to describe a proposed extraterritorial transit route through Armenia’s Syunik province. That terminology is not accidental. It reflects a strategic doctrine aimed at physically linking Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan and onward to Turkey, advancing long-standing pan-Turkic objectives. Fidan stated plainly that such a corridor would benefit Turkey by granting it “direct access to the Turkic world and Central Asia.” In other words, Armenia’s sovereign territory is being discussed not as Armenian land, but as transit infrastructure for Turkish and Azerbaijani regional ambitions. More alarming still was Fidan’s confirmation that Ankara closely coordinated its interpretation of the so-called TRIPP road agreement with Azerbaijan’s foreign minister, emphasizing that Baku’s understanding was decisive and that Turkey’s president had been briefed accordingly. Armenia’s interests were conspicuously absent from that description. The reaction from Yerevan only deepened the crisis. Armenian Parliament Speaker Alen Simonyan publicly thanked the Turkish foreign minister for his support, expressing gratitude for Ankara’s role in advancing regional cooperation and trade under the TRIPP framework. This was not forced diplomacy under duress; it was voluntary political affirmation. For Armenians, especially those in the Diaspora descended from genocide survivors, this moment cuts to the core of national identity. The Armenian state was built on the moral foundation that genocide denial, territorial coercion and foreign domination would never again dictate Armenian political life. To see an Armenian government welcomed, endorsed and guided by the very states responsible for existential trauma represents a rupture with that foundation. A government that survives through the approval of hostile powers is not exercising sovereignty; it is administering dependency. This reality must be stated plainly. When Turkish officials publicly support Armenia’s prime minister, coordinate with Azerbaijan on Armenian territory and speak of Armenian obligations still “left to fulfill,” this is not partnership; it is subjugation. Armenians are not obligated to accept this as normal. Calling it “peace” does not change its substance. Political authority derived from Ankara and Baku does not become legitimate simply because it is wrapped in diplomatic language. Sovereignty is not defined solely by elections. It is defined by independence of will. When that independence is replaced by endorsement from historic enemies, states that deny genocide, celebrate military aggression and openly articulate territorial ambitions, the result is not reconciliation. It is subordination. And any political order sustained under such conditions must be judged accordingly.