Armenia’s Diversified Partnerships: Opportunities and Risks in a Fragmenting Geopolitical Order

2026-03-12 - 09:25

Listen to the AI generated audio article. Your browser does not support the audio element. Since the 2020 war and the subsequent deterioration of Armenia–Russia security relations, Armenia’s foreign policy has undergone a profound transformation. The country has gradually moved from a model rooted in security dependence to a strategy of diversified partnerships across multiple geopolitical spaces. This shift reflects both structural changes in the regional environment and Armenia’s pursuit of greater strategic autonomy in an increasingly fragmented international order. Armenia’s diplomatic engagement now spans several geopolitical arenas. It includes a strategic partnership with the United States, a strategic agenda with the European Union, advanced bilateral partnerships with France, the Netherlands, Germany, Luxembourg, Poland, Greece, Cyprus and the United Kingdom in Europe; Georgia and Iran in the region; India, China, and Kazakhstan in Asia; as well as continued linkages with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. From Dependency to Strategic Diversification For decades, Armenia relied on Russia as its primary security guarantor while maintaining relatively limited engagement with other international actors. Since 2022, that model has gradually given way to a new approach, formally articulated as a “balanced and balancing” foreign policy in January 2025 and since reflected in the diversification of strategic partnerships with a wide range of actors. In a geopolitical environment increasingly shaped by strategic competition among major powers, smaller states are seeking ways to preserve diplomatic maneuverability without being locked into rigid alliance structures. Diversifying external partnerships has emerged as one such strategy. For Armenia, several developments accelerated this shift. The erosion of Russia’s security guarantees after the 2020 war raised fundamental questions about the sustainability of Armenia’s traditional security arrangements. Azerbaijan’s growing military superiority and increasingly coercive diplomacy created an urgent need to strengthen deterrence through broader international engagement. At the same time, intensifying geopolitical competition among major powers opened new diplomatic and economic opportunities for Armenia to expand its external relationships. Under these conditions, Armenian foreign policy began evolving from reactive crisis management toward a more deliberate effort to construct a network of strategic partnerships that can collectively strengthen the country’s resilience. The objective is not to replace one alliance with another, but to expand the range of partners available to Armenia. Multi-Alignment as a Foreign Policy Strategy This evolving configuration increasingly resembles a multi-alignment strategy. Unlike the earlier notion of multi-vector foreign policy, which typically refers to maintaining balanced relations with several major powers while remaining anchored in a dominant security framework, multi-alignment involves deliberately developing multiple strategic partnerships across geopolitical, institutional, and economic spheres. Rather than simply balancing relations among competing powers, it seeks to build parallel channels of cooperation in security, technology, economics, and diplomacy in order to reduce structural dependence on any single external actor and expand strategic autonomy. Armenia’s evolving approach differs from several other concepts commonly used to describe small-state foreign policy strategies as well. It does not represent a simple geopolitical pivot between East and West, commonly understood as a strategic reorientation in which a state decisively shifts its political, economic, or security alignment from one geopolitical bloc to another. Nor does it constitute hedging in the traditional sense, whereby states maintain deliberately ambiguous alignments between competing powers in order to avoid committing fully to any single partner. Instead, Armenia’s current policy reflects a deliberate effort to expand strategic autonomy, mitigate security vulnerabilities, and diversify economic, technological, and security partnerships in an increasingly fragmented international environment. For a small state located at the intersection of competing geopolitical spheres, diversification is a pragmatic instrument for navigating uncertainty while preserving room for diplomatic maneuver. Differentiated Partnerships Armenia’s expanding network of strategic and enhanced partnerships varies considerably in depth, scope, and geopolitical weight. Not all partnerships generate the same strategic value: some are formalized through declarations or institutional frameworks yet produce limited practical impact, while others—despite being less formally codified—play a far more consequential role in Armenia’s security, technological development, or diplomatic positioning. In practice, a partnership’s strategic relevance depends less on its formal label than on the scale of cooperation, the level of political commitment, and the concrete capabilities or opportunities it provides. As a result, Armenia’s external partnerships form a layered framework in which different relationships serve distinct functions, ranging from defense cooperation and technological modernization to governance reform and economic integration. Understanding the relative weight and implications of these partnerships therefore requires examining each one individually, as they reflect different strategic priorities, opportunities, and constraints within Armenia’s broader diversification strategy. Western Strategic Partnerships In 2024, many analysts interpreted Armenia’s expanding cooperation with Western actors as evidence of a geopolitical pivot toward the West. However, several subsequent developments have increasingly challenged that interpretation. Armenia has continued to maintain and even expand relations with a wide range of partners beyond the Western sphere, while the broader geopolitical environment has become more fragmented. In particular, growing tensions and weakening coordinated policy formats between the U.S. and the EU have highlighted the absence of a fully coherent Western strategic framework in the region. The joint U.S.–EU platform on Armenia that emerged during the Biden administration is no longer functioning as an active formal policy format. Nevertheless, despite broader disagreements between Washington and Brussels, there is no visible strategic divergence in their approaches to Armenia or the South Caucasus at this stage. In practice, their policies toward Armenia continue to appear largely complementary, and informal coordination between Western actors on the ground has so far helped avoid policy friction in the region. The U.S., EU and France all have significant projects in Armenia, including in the strategic Syunik region, and it is important to avoid competition and ensure synergies between them. At the same time, should tensions between the U.S and key European partners—particularly France and the EU—deepen further, Armenia’s parallel partnerships with these actors could become more difficult to manage. United States: Unexpected Strategic Engagement The deepening of relations between Armenia and the U.S. through the Strategic Partnership Charter—initiated during the Biden administration and later embraced by the Trump administration—marked an important step in Armenia’s diversification strategy. Cooperation between the two countries has expanded to include defense and security, notably through the transfer of military surveillance drones and joint military exercises; the peaceful use of nuclear energy, including support for small modular nuclear reactors; and collaboration in advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and high-performance computing to strengthen Armenia’s technological capacity and innovation ecosystem. American engagement has also played an important role in mitigating immediate security risks in the region. U.S. diplomatic efforts reportedly contributed to discouraging Azerbaijan from launching a new military offensive against Armenia in the spring–summer of 2025. This was followed by President Donald Trump’s mediation at the Washington summit, which produced an unfinished peace framework between Armenia and Azerbaijan and launched the TRIPP connectivity initiative. The latter, envisioning transport infrastructure linking the region through Armenia, reflects Washington’s effort to frame regional connectivity as a tool for economic integration and conflict mitigation. At the same time, U.S. engagement in the South Caucasus is shaped by broader regional dynamics, including Washington’s relations with Turkey, Azerbaijan and Iran. European Union: Transition to the New Strategic Agenda The EU is another central pillar of Armenia’s external partnerships. Cooperation initially developed through the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA), which established a framework for Armenia’s institutional reforms, regulatory convergence with EU standards, and deeper economic cooperation. Over time, this engagement expanded beyond technical cooperation to include broader political dialogue and long-term economic integration with European markets. Alongside these institutional and economic instruments, the EU has also developed a limited but essential security role in Armenia. Following Azerbaijan’s military offensives against Armenia in 2021–2022, the deployment of the EU Mission in Armenia (EUMA) marked the EU’s first on-the-ground security presence in the country. The monitoring mission contributes to stability along Armenia’s borders and serves as political reassurance and a form of soft security deterrence. In addition, the European Peace Facility has enabled the EU to provide non-lethal assistance to Armenia’s defense sector, further expanding the security dimension of EU engagement. The EU has also committed to strengthening Armenia’s resilience in countering hybrid threats. Armenia’s growing articulation of its EU integration aspirations has reinforced the political and societal dimensions of this relationship. Since December 2025, relations have been elevated through the adoption of the EU–Armenia Strategic Agenda, which provides a more structured framework for advancing cooperation across multiple sectors. The Agenda reflects Armenia’s gradual deepening of engagement with European institutions and introduces new areas of cooperation, including enhanced political dialogue and a more structured EU–Armenia security dialogue. The launch of the visa liberalisation plan further illustrates the expanding scope of EU–Armenia relations. The decision to hold the eight European Political Community (EPC) meeting in Yerevan in May 2026 also highlights the country’s growing political engagement with Europe. Taken together, these developments position the EU as a multidimensional partner for Armenia, combining institutional transformation and economic integration, with contributions to the country’s security environment. France: A De Facto Strategic Partner Awaiting Formalization France has emerged as one of Armenia’s most consequential bilateral partners in recent years, particularly in defense and security cooperation. It has provided consistent political support for Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in international organizations, especially through its role in the United Nations Security Council and the EU. France was the first NATO and European Union member state to provide military equipment to Armenia while the country was still formally a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), effectively breaking a longstanding taboo. Defense cooperation between the two countries has since developed across several dimensions, including the supply of air defense systems, radar technologies, military training and institutional cooperation between defense ministries. This engagement reflects France’s growing willingness to support Armenia’s efforts to strengthen its defensive capabilities and strategic resilience in the aftermath of Azerbaijan’s military offensives. Beyond the security sphere, the bilateral relationship has also expanded through cooperation in infrastructure development and high technologies. At the same time, longstanding ties in education and cultural exchange continue to reflect the broader soft-power dimension of French engagement in Armenia. Together with security cooperation, these initiatives have contributed to a multidimensional partnership that combines political, security, economic, and societal ties. These developments reveal a clear mismatch between the de facto strategic depth of the France–Armenia partnership and its still incomplete formalization. In practice, the relationship has already acquired many of the characteristics of a strategic partnership, even though its formal institutionalization is expected in the coming months. Other European Bilateral Partnerships Armenia has also developed a number of bilateral partnerships with other European states that support its broader diversification strategy. The Netherlands has emerged as a vocal political supporter of Armenia within European institutions, with the two countries elevating relations through a Strategic Partnership Declaration in 2025 that emphasizes cooperation in democratic governance, cyber resilience, and countering hybrid threats. Germany has also strengthened its engagement with Armenia, culminating in the adoption of a Strategic Agenda for Bilateral Partnership. This expands cooperation in political dialogue, economic development, security, and institutional capacity building, even as Berlin seeks to balance its regional approach between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Luxembourg represents a partnership between two small states, focused on political dialogue, financial sector and innovation cooperation, support for Armenia’s engagement with European institutions, and emerging collaboration in satellite technologies and space governance. Poland has expressed political support for Armenia while expanding bilateral engagement. The relationship has also recently acquired a defense dimension through the signing of a military-technical cooperation agreement in February 2026, which is expected to expand into a broader partnership. Greece and Cyprus represent longstanding partners for Armenia in Europe, with relations rooted in traditional political and cultural ties and sustained diplomatic dialogue. Apart from bilateral ties, the cooperation includes the Greece–Cyprus–Armenia trilateral framework, which stipulates defense coordination, joint training, and consultations on regional security. Defense cooperation is based on the shared interest in stability in the Eastern Mediterranean and the South Caucasus and includes training of Armenian officers in Greek military academies. Recently, Armenia has expressed its intention to elevate relations with Greece and Cyprus to the level of strategic partnership. Traditionally perceived as closer to Azerbaijan, the United Kingdom has in recent years recalibrated its regional engagement, culminating in a 2025 decision to upgrade relations with Armenia to a Strategic Partnership following the UK–Armenia Strategic Dialogue. This expands cooperation in political dialogue, economic ties, and emerging defense and security collaboration in the European space beyond the EU. Regional Partnerships in a Volatile Environment Armenia’s regional partnerships evolve within a complex geopolitical environment. The peace process with Azerbaijan remains unfinished, normalization with Turkey is still pending, and Armenia’s borders with both countries remain closed. In this context, relations with Georgia and Iran take on heightened strategic importance because they provide Armenia’s main gateways for regional connectivity, trade, and access to international markets. The importance of these partnerships is shaped not only by regional diplomacy but also by Armenia’s geographic constraints and its need to maintain reliable transit routes in a fragmented regional environment. Georgia: Strategic Partnership under Structural Constraints Georgia remains Armenia’s principal northern partner and its primary transit corridor to the Black Sea and European markets. In 2024, the two countries elevated their relations to a Strategic Partnership, reflecting the centrality of connectivity, trade, and regional stability in bilateral cooperation. Armenia has traditionally relied on Georgian transport infrastructure for access to the Black Sea and Europe. Delays in the transit of French military equipment to Armenia and disruptions affecting Armenian exports to Russia have exposed the risks of relying on Georgian routes. Georgia may view emerging regional connectivity initiatives with caution, as they could affect its long-standing position as the South Caucasus’ principal transit hub. Armenian officials have underlined that new connectivity projects should complement rather than bypass existing routes, while Georgian representatives have indicated that they do not oppose such initiatives. Managing these sensitivities remains an important element of Armenia–Georgia relations as regional transport initiatives continue to evolve. Democratic backsliding in Georgia and the suspension of its EU candidate status further illustrate the difficult environment in which this partnership evolves. Armenia seeks to maintain constructive relations with Georgia regardless of the political orientation of the government in Tbilisi, not least because it is difficult to imagine meaningful progress in Armenia’s own European integration agenda without Georgia advancing along a similar trajectory. At the same time, developments in Georgia serve as a cautionary example in Armenian policy debates about how democratic transitions can become vulnerable under geopolitical pressure. Iran: Navigating a Precarious Partnership Iran remains an important regional partner for Armenia, and the two countries have announced plans to elevate their relationship through a forthcoming strategic partnership framework. Bilateral cooperation includes energy exchanges, cross-border trade, and transport connectivity that links Armenia to the Middle East, South Asia, and parts of East Asia. Armenia also serves as one of Iran’s potential gateways to Europe. These interactions support Armenia’s economic diversification and broader regional integration. In parallel, Armenia and Iran have also explored trilateral cooperation formats with other partners. Iran has played an implicit role in Armenia’s security environment by firmly opposing any attempt to alter the Armenia–Iran border, particularly proposals for an extraterritorial corridor across southern Armenia by Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey and Russia. This stance served as an indirect deterrent to Azerbaijan’s possible military offensive in Armenia’s Syunik region. However, the dynamic has been partly reshaped by growing U.S. engagement in regional diplomacy and connectivity initiatives, which have also raised sensitivities in Tehran. Iranian officials have expressed concerns that the U.S.-supported TRIPP project could alter regional transit dynamics and diminish Iran’s geopolitical role in the South Caucasus. Armenia therefore seeks to maintain stable, pragmatic relations with Iran while continuing to diversify its external partnerships. At the same time, Iran’s ongoing conflict and internal crisis introduce significant uncertainty into Armenia’s strategic environment. Major destabilization in Iran would not only disrupt economic and transit connections but could also alter the broader regional balance in the South Caucasus, with potential implications for Armenia’s security. Asian Partnerships Armenia’s diversification strategy has also expanded toward Asian partners, particularly India, China, and Kazakhstan. These relationships focus primarily on defense cooperation, economic connectivity, and broader Eurasian economic engagement. They complement Armenia’s partnerships with Western and regional actors and support the country’s multi-alignment strategy. India: A Key Partner for Defense Diversification India has emerged as a key partner for Armenia, although the relationship has not yet been formalized as a strategic partnership. It reflects shared interests in regional security, aligning with Armenia’s multi-alignment strategy and India’s tradition of strategic autonomy. Defense cooperation has become the most visible dimension of the relationship. Since the 2020 war, India has become Armenia’s leading arms supplier, with major contracts for artillery systems, air-defense technologies, and other military equipment marking a significant shift in Armenia’s defense procurement. Alongside this growing military-technical cooperation, economic and commercial ties are also expanding, including a rising presence of Indian students and workers in Armenia. Connectivity initiatives are also under discussion, particularly through the International North–South Transport Corridor via Iran. This aligns with Armenia’s “Crossroads of Peace” initiative and broader efforts to strengthen Eurasian transport networks. China: A Pragmatic Economic Partner Armenia and China maintain a pragmatic relationship that has remained primarily economic in nature. Bilateral trade has grown steadily, driven largely by Armenian exports of copper and molybdenum, while Chinese engagement has focused mainly on trade, technology cooperation, and cultural exchanges. China is therefore widely perceived in Armenia as a potential economic partner and, unlike some other external actors, does not currently exercise visible political influence in the country. Relations entered a new phase in August 2025 when the two countries established a Strategic Partnership, signaling a shared interest in expanding cooperation across several sectors. Armenia has also sought to engage with Asian multilateral frameworks, including through its application for membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, although the prospects of its bid have so far remained uncertain. At the same time, emerging regional connectivity initiatives, including the U.S.-backed TRIPP framework, may introduce new dynamics that intersect with China’s broader connectivity vision in Eurasia. Kazakhstan: A Potential Balancing Partner in Eurasia Despite Armenia’s effective suspension of participation in the CSTO, relations with Kazakhstan—an EAEU and CSTO member state—have recently advanced, culminating in the establishment of a strategic partnership in 2025. Kazakhstan is also a member of the Organization of Turkic States (OTS), which has traditionally expressed political support for Azerbaijan in the Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict. The Armenia–Kazakhstan strategic partnership focuses primarily on expanding trade, investment, transport connectivity, and intergovernmental cooperation within Eurasian institutional frameworks. It also provides a platform for dialogue on regional political and security issues. For Armenia, Kazakhstan is an important interlocutor with Central Asia and may serve as a balancing partner within a regional environment shaped by its close relations with Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Russia. Russia: From Strategic Ally to a Strained and Uneasy Partnership The traditional alliance with Russia was long considered central to Armenia’s security architecture. It was institutionalized through bilateral defense agreements and membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and reinforced by Armenia’s economic dependence on Russia, both directly and through the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). However, the relationship has deteriorated significantly since the 2020 war. Russia’s failure to fulfill its peacekeeping mandate in Nagorno-Karabakh, and its inability to uphold security commitments to Armenia during Azerbaijani military offensives, have severely undermined trust in Moscow’s role as Armenia’s security partner. In response, Armenia has declared its withdrawal from the CSTO irreversible and has increasingly sought security cooperation with alternative partners. The security footprint is also shifting: Russian border guards and security personnel have withdrawn from most checkpoints in Armenia, although the Russian military base remains in place. At the same time, Armenia remains economically interconnected with Russia through the Eurasian Economic Union, energy infrastructure, and labor migration. Armenia-Russia relations entered a period of sharp political and rhetorical confrontation in 2022–2024, with tensions rising. Since 2025, however, both sides have sought to mitigate risks and stabilize the relationship, even as Russia’s hybrid influence and political frictions persist. This reflects the structural interdependence that continues to shape Armenia–Russia relations despite the erosion of their former security alliance and political alignment. Not All Strategic Partnerships Are Equal The formal status of a partnership does not always reflect its practical significance. In some cases, relationships that are not formally institutionalized carry greater strategic weight than agreements labeled as “strategic.” For example, although Armenia has not formalized comprehensive strategic partnership frameworks with France or India, French political support and defense cooperation, along with India’s role as a major supplier of military equipment, have become among the most consequential elements of Armenia’s security architecture. At the same time, the trajectory of several newer partnerships remains uncertain. Their depth and sustainability will depend on evolving geopolitical dynamics and the consistency of political commitments among partners. Armenia’s experience with the deterioration of its alliance with Russia has also fostered caution about entering new alliance structures, reinforcing a preference for flexible partnerships rather than binding security alliances. Understanding these distinctions is essential for assessing Armenia’s diversification strategy. While the expansion of partnerships increases Armenia’s diplomatic options, it also introduces new strategic risks and dilemmas that require careful management. Geopolitical Dilemmas in an Increasingly Fragmented Environment Armenia’s diversification strategy is unfolding in a geopolitical environment that is far more complex than in previous decades. Rising tensions—and in some cases direct military confrontation—among Armenia’s strategic partners increasingly force Yerevan to navigate competing expectations carefully and avoid crossing different actors’ red lines. For decades, Armenia’s external positioning was shaped by a structural dilemma: balancing relations with Russia and Iran on one side and Western actors on the other. This dynamic intensified markedly after the start of Russia’s war against Ukraine. The EU’s confrontation with Russia remains ongoing, while the trajectory of the U.S.–Russia relations is uncertain and at times inconsistent. Armenia’s deepening engagement with the U.S. and the EU—including the articulation of EU integration aspirations, the deployment of the EU Monitoring Mission in Armenia (EUMA), French defense support, and the launch of the TRIPP connectivity initiative—has generated strong reactions from Moscow, including intensified information warfare and other hybrid influence tools. At the same time, in June 2025 and March 2026, relations between the U.S. and Iran escalated into direct military confrontation. While most EU actors have not aligned themselves with U.S. military actions, they continue to maintain restrictive sanctions against Iran and broadly favor political change in Tehran. In this fragmented environment, Armenia increasingly faces situations in which cooperation with one partner may raise sensitivities for another. The current U.S.–Iran confrontation illustrates this dilemma particularly clearly. While Iran’s role as a security deterrent for Armenia’s south has decreased due to the increased U.S. engagement in the region, Armenia still relies on its southern border for critical economic and connectivity links. Meanwhile, the expansion of the new U.S. role in regional diplomacy and connectivity initiatives, including the proposed TRIPP framework, places Armenia in a delicate position between two partners in an open military conflict. Yerevan is therefore maintaining a cautious, neutral posture, emphasizing the importance of regional stability while avoiding actions that could be interpreted as alignment with either side. However, the sustainability of such neutrality remains uncertain as the confrontation between Washington and Tehran continues. Beyond these dynamics, Armenia’s foreign policy now operates within a broader web of geopolitical rivalries that extends well beyond the traditional West–Russia or West–Iran divide. Strategic competition between the U.S. and China has become visible across Eurasia, and initiatives such as TRIPP may eventually intersect with this broader rivalry. At the regional level, tensions between Georgia and the EU have emerged amid democratic backsliding in Georgia and the subsequent suspension of its EU candidate status. Other rivalries—such as those between India and China—currently play a less immediate role in Armenia’s foreign policy calculations but may become more relevant as Armenia expands its engagement with Asian partners. Additional complexities also arise within Armenia’s Western partnerships themselves. Divergent approaches between the Trump administration and most European actors—particularly regarding the war in Ukraine, NATO burden-sharing, and the U.S. attitude toward the EU—have generated visible tensions across the transatlantic space. For example, Armenia’s participation in the Board of Peace illustrates how engagement in initiatives promoted by one partner may intersect with reservations expressed by others about the initiative itself. France and several European actors did not welcome the U.S. initiation of the Board and have chosen not to join it, viewing the body as a unilateral initiative that could undermine the role of the United Nations. Armenia, however, could not easily refuse participation given the central role of the U.S. in the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process. Thus, Armenia’s expanding network of partnerships can place the country at the intersection of competing expectations among its partners. At the same time, Armenia’s partners appear more aware than in recent years of the constraints faced by small states operating in contested geopolitical environments. In contrast to earlier periods, when alignment choices were framed in more rigid terms, most actors seem less inclined to demand that Armenia adopt a strict geopolitical posture. Experiences in Ukraine and Georgia have demonstrated the risks of forcing small states in contested regions into absolute geopolitical choices. Nevertheless, Armenia’s diversification strategy still requires careful diplomatic calibration. Even in a more flexible environment, the implicit red lines of key partners—whether related to security issues, sanctions regimes, or regional connectivity arrangements—remain an important constraint that Armenia must manage with caution. The Risk of Excessive Pragmatism and Neutrality Another challenge is the potential consequences of an overly pragmatic foreign policy. Armenia’s diversification strategy is largely driven by geopolitical necessity and security considerations. However, if diversification becomes too transactional, it may weaken the role of value-based foreign policy principles that have traditionally been important for small states that rely on international law. Armenia has increasingly positioned itself as a democratic partner in the region, strengthening relations with the EU and the U.S. partly on the basis of shared political values. This has helped generate political support for Armenia among European and transatlantic partners. At the same time, Armenia has grown increasingly frustrated with how the rules-based international order functions. The use of military force in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, followed by Azerbaijani military offensives against Armenia’s sovereign territory, has contributed to a perception that international norms and legal principles are not consistently enforced. Limited international condemnation of these actions—and, in some cases, their implicit legitimization in the name of geopolitical considerations—has further reinforced this view. Since the 2020 war, Armenia has also faced pressure to make concessions in the interest of achieving peace, strengthening the perception in Armenia that international norms are applied unequally. These experiences have encouraged a more pragmatic and transactional approach to foreign policy. At the same time, diversifying partnerships across actors with different political systems and geopolitical priorities may limit Armenia’s ability to openly criticize violations of international law, democratic backsliding, or authoritarian tendencies in partner states. In some cases, maintaining strict neutrality between partners may further constrain Armenia’s willingness to take principled positions on such issues. Over time, this dynamic risks eroding the normative foundation of Armenia’s external partnerships, as relationships built primarily on short-term strategic calculations may prove less stable than those grounded in shared institutional norms, democratic governance, and long-term political alignment. The Risk of Overstretching and Diluting Strategic Partnerships Another emerging challenge is the growing number of partnerships that Armenia now characterizes as “strategic.” As Armenia expands its external relations, the proliferation of strategic partnerships may weaken the political meaning and credibility of the concept. When too many relationships are described as strategic, the term becomes overstretched, reducing its signaling value both domestically and internationally. At the same time, a growing number of strategic partnerships may place increasing demands on Armenia’s institutional and diplomatic capacity to manage and absorb them effectively. For a small state with limited administrative and diplomatic resources, sustaining multiple high-level partnerships simultaneously may prove challenging. It may also create competing expectations among partners and complicate policy prioritization. In such circumstances, some partnerships may remain largely declarative, without developing substantial political, economic, or security content. Armenia may therefore need to distinguish more clearly between core strategic partnerships, important political relationships, and broader frameworks of cooperation to preserve the credibility and effectiveness of its foreign policy. Conclusion Armenia’s evolving foreign policy reflects a broader shift in the international system toward a more multipolar order, in which smaller states in contested regions may choose to rely on diversified partnerships rather than exclusive alliances. By cultivating a network of overlapping relationships, Armenia seeks to transform geopolitical vulnerability into diplomatic flexibility. Diversification creates opportunities for economic development, technological modernization, and defense cooperation while reducing the risk of security crises and external coercion. The sustainability of this strategy, however, will depend on Armenia’s ability to manage tensions among its partners, avoid crossing their red lines, and maintain a coherent strategic orientation grounded in its broader political values. If global geopolitical competition hardens into rigid blocs, Armenia may again face pressure to align more clearly with one side, as occurred during earlier attempts to pursue complementary and multi-vector foreign policies. For now, Armenia’s approach seeks to navigate uncertainty through diversification by building a flexible network of partnerships that allows the country to preserve autonomy in an increasingly polarized international environment. However, intensifying geopolitical competition, rising tensions, and conflicts among major powers could narrow Armenia’s strategic space, testing the sustainability of its diversification strategy. Statecraft & Governance Armenia’s Doctrine of Multi-Alignment: Strategic Partnerships, Not Alliances Nerses Kopalyan Jan 22, 2026 Armenia’s foreign and security policy realignment is reshaping regional dynamics. Nerses Kopalyan introduces the doctrine of multi-alignment to Armenia’s policy discourse, arguing that diversification is rooted in this doctrine, one that favors strategic partnerships over alliances to de-risk security and enhance statecraft. Read more Aliyev’s Forked-Tongue Policy: Peace Meets Anti-Armenian Propaganda Nerses Kopalyan Mar 5, 2026 While Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev portrays himself globally as a proponent of reconciliation and regional cooperation, the data clearly demonstrates his questionable commitment to the peace process. In this expansive study, Nerses Kopalyan and a team of researchers produce empirically-grounded analysis, utilizing an AI machine-learning toolkit, of Azerbaijan’s media ecosystem, revealing the disconnect between Aliyev’s domestic propaganda and his diplomatic rhetoric on peace. Read more Politics On Armenia’s Southern Frontier Hranoush Dermoyan Feb 18, 2026 Syunik occupies a critical place in Armenia’s security and development calculus. The EU’s Resilient Syunik initiative represents one of the largest coordinated Western-funded regional programs in the country, combining infrastructure upgrades, economic support and governance reform. Read more Strategic Partnerships in Motion: J.D. Vance in Armenia and Azerbaijan Sossi Tatikyan Feb 13, 2026 J.D. Vance’s visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan signaled a deeper U.S. role in the South Caucasus, with new defense and nuclear agreements, AI cooperation and TRIPP connectivity. The parallel tracks pursued in both capitals raise important questions about balance, leverage and the future architecture of peace in the region. Sossi Tatikian explains. Read more Iran’s Domestic Crisis and Implications for Armenia Sossi Tatikyan Jan 13, 2026 Nationwide unrest and escalating repression in Iran are reshaping regional security dynamics, with growing risks of external escalation. For Armenia, the crisis heightens exposure to border instability, trade disruption, and diplomatic strain, testing Yerevan’s ability to balance relations amid a shifting deterrence landscape. Read more The New U.S. National Security Strategy: Implications for Armenia Sossi Tatikyan Dec 15, 2025 The 2025 U.S. National Security Strategy signals a shift toward sovereignty-centered, transactional realism. Sossi Tatikyan explores how this new doctrine reshapes U.S. engagement in the South Caucasus and its implications for Armenia’s security, diplomacy, peace process with Azerbaijan, and partnership with Washington. Read more Security Dimensions of the EU-Armenia Strategic Agenda Nerses Kopalyan Dec 8, 2025 The security component of the Strategic Agenda incorporates Europe as an important part of Armenia’s developing security architecture, writes Nerses Kopalyan, where the confluence of hard power capacity and small-state resilience become integrated, at the institutional level, with European and Transatlantic standards. Read more Armenia’s Murky Surveillance Landscape: When Privacy Becomes Politics Hranoush Dermoyan Nov 20, 2025 Armenia’s political landscape has been shaken by leaked recordings, questionable surveillance, and criminal cases built on audio, sometimes of unknown origin. Hranoush Dermoyan examines the murky intersection of privacy, power and politics, revealing how wiretapping has become a tool of influence and pressure. Read more Building the Architecture of Cybersecurity: Armenia’s Institutional Turn Albert Nerzetyan Nov 19, 2025 Armenia has lagged in global cybersecurity rankings, but new institutions, a comprehensive Cybersecurity Law, and alignment with EU standards signal a turning point. Albert Nerzetyan examines the country’s emerging governance framework, its structural advantages, and the challenges ahead in implementation. Read more A Viral Scandal and the Line Between Privacy and Public Interest Anoush Begoyan Nov 17, 2025 What are the legal and ethical boundaries between privacy and public interest in democratic societies? Using the recent leaked video involving a senior Armenian cleric as context, Anoush Begoyan outlines established principles that distinguish legitimate scrutiny from voyeurism and scandal. Read more France–Armenia Defense Partnership: From Symbolic Solidarity to Support for Sovereignty Sossi Tatikyan Nov 13, 2025 France’s defense cooperation with Armenia marks a decisive shift in its policy toward the EU’s eastern periphery. Moving from symbolism to substance, Paris now helps Yerevan build deterrence and resilience, reshaping how sovereignty and stability interact in the South Caucasus. Sossi Tatikyan explains. Read more Armenia, China, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization: Navigating Between Poles Sossi Tatikyan Oct 22, 2025 Armenia’s pursuit of a strategic partnership with China and its bid to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) reflect a broader effort to recalibrate foreign policy amid shifting global alignments, balancing ambition with constraint in an increasingly multipolar world. Read more Armenia vs. Azerbaijan: Competing Narratives at the UN Sossi Tatikyan Oct 1, 2025 Five years after the 2020 war, Aliyev and Pashinyan addressed the UNGA with sharply contrasting narratives. Aliyev employed cognitive warfare to assert dominance and legitimize past aggression, while Pashinyan exercised narrative constraint, emphasizing sovereignty, reciprocity and constructive peacebuilding. Sossi Tatikyan explains. Read more Armenia’s Balancing Act in a Multipolar World Hovhannes Nazaretyan Sep 25, 2025 As global power shifts toward multipolarity, Armenia faces profound uncertainty. With Russia’s retreat and ongoing regional pressures, Yerevan is pursuing a “balanced and balancing” foreign policy—deepening Western ties while engaging Iran, India, China and others—in a bold recalibration of its security and diplomacy. Read more Opinion Church and State in Armenia: A Crisis Decades in the Making Tigran Yegavian Mar 4, 2026 As emotion and polarization shape public discourse, ongoing debates over Church–State relations reveal a deeper fault line in Armenia’s post-Soviet order—structural ambiguity. Beyond personalities and politics, it exposes unresolved tensions between national identity, religious authority and constitutional governance. Read more The Struggle for Northeast Syria’s Future Karena Avedissian Feb 20, 2026 Syria’s January 2026 offensive against Rojava threatens a decade of decentralized, pluralistic governance in northeast Syria. Among those at risk are Islamized Armenians, whose hard-won political and cultural gains illustrate the fragility of local autonomy under centralization. Read more From Smyrna to Stepanakert: How National Defeats Reshape States Tigran Yegavian Feb 5, 2026 Focusing on legitimacy, refugees, national memory and whether trauma becomes paralysis or a catalyst for reinvention, Tigran Yegavian presents a comparative analysis of how catastrophic defeat reshapes states, examining Greece after the 1922 Asia Minor Catastrophe and Armenia after the loss of Artsakh. Read more Honor Thy Dead Maria Titizian Jan 27, 2026 A new national day of remembrance raises difficult questions about memory, truth and accountability, especially after the 2020 Artsakh War. Honoring the dead requires more than ritual, or a date on a calendar, it demands names, transparency and a truthful reckoning with how and why the war was lost. Read more