By Albert Najaryan
Armenia’s Foreign Policy at a Crossroads
In recent years, Armenia has been trying to redefine its position in the South Caucasus region. It has gradually moved away from its traditional dependence on Russia, building closer political and economic ties with the European Union and the United States instead. The 2026 parliamentary elections confirmed that this trend is set to continue, giving Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government another mandate to pursue a more Western-oriented foreign policy. However, securing domestic political support does not automatically make the country safer abroad. In fact, Armenia now finds itself in a difficult position. While expanding its international partnerships, it also risks becoming more strategically isolated than at any time since gaining independence.
This situation did not emerge because of one decision or one government. It is the result of a rapidly changing geopolitical environment, in which Armenia is trying to navigate between competing regional powers without receiving any firm security guarantees from them.
The Deterioration of Relations with Russia
Perhaps the clearest example of this new reality is Armenia’s relationship with Russia. For many years, Moscow was Armenia’s main security partner and one of its largest trading partners. It was also its closest military ally. However, that relationship changed dramatically after the events of 2023. Armenia was disappointed by Russia’s response when Nagorno-Karabakh was lost, and Yerevan’s decision to distance itself from the CSTO significantly damaged political trust between the two countries.
Today, these tensions are becoming increasingly visible in economic relations. Russia has recently introduced restrictions on several categories of Armenian exports, including agricultural produce, alcoholic beverages, flowers and fish. Although these measures were officially presented as technical decisions, their political significance is hard to deny. They demonstrate how rapidly trade and economic cooperation can become instruments of geopolitical pressure.
This is a serious concern for Armenia. The Russian market remains extremely important for Armenian exporters, and it is not possible to replace decades of economic integration overnight. Building new trade partnerships takes time, whereas existing ones can be lost very quickly
The Limits of Western Support
Meanwhile, Armenia has made significant progress in its relations with the West. The European Union has increased its financial assistance to Armenia, expanded political dialogue with the country, and opened up new opportunities for its exports. These diplomatic developments could support long-term economic growth and institutional reforms. However, it is important not to confuse economic and political cooperation with security guarantees. Neither the European Union nor the United States provides Armenia with a collective defence system comparable to that of traditional military alliances. While financial assistance, diplomatic support and international monitoring missions are valuable, they cannot replace military deterrence in the event of security threats. This leaves Armenia in an uncomfortable position. While relations with Russia have weakened considerably, Western partnerships, although growing, have not yet developed into a comprehensive security framework.
A Region That Is Becoming More Competitive
At the same time, the regional balance of power continues to evolve. Azerbaijan has strengthened its strategic partnership with Turkey while maintaining pragmatic relations with Russia and expanding energy cooperation with European countries. This allows Baku to work with different international actors without becoming overly dependent on any single one of them.
Iran also remains an important part of Armenia’s strategic calculations. The southern border has long served as both an economic gateway and an important geopolitical counterbalance. However, continuing instability around Iran, international sanctions, and uncertainty about the country’s future role create additional risks for Armenia. Any serious escalation involving Iran would directly affect Armenia’s trade routes, energy cooperation, and regional connectivity.
Taken together, these developments raise an important question: is Armenia successfully diversifying its foreign policy, or is it weakening old partnerships faster than it is building new ones?
The Cost of Strategic Transition
It is a legitimate objective for any sovereign state to diversify its foreign policy. Naturally, countries seek partnerships that best serve their national interests. The challenge lies in ensuring that this process does not create any strategic vulnerabilities.
Foreign policy cannot be measured solely by political statements or diplomatic visits. Fundamentally, it is judged by the strength of a country’s economy, the resilience of its institutions, the credibility of its diplomacy and its ability to protect its national security. Recent political developments in Armenia make this transition even more complicated. The 2026 parliamentary elections once again demonstrated that the Armenian people are deeply divided over the country’s geopolitical direction. While the government believes that closer cooperation with the West is necessary, many critics argue that relations with Russia have deteriorated too quickly without sufficient alternatives being put in place.
Regardless of political views, one thing is clear: Deep political polarisation makes it much harder to develop a consistent long-term foreign policy. When society is divided on fundamental strategic issues, maintaining continuity becomes increasingly difficult.
Armenia’s greatest challenge today is perhaps not the loss of one particular partner, but the gradual narrowing of its diplomatic options. Small states survive by maintaining flexibility and keeping communication open with different actors, even when disagreements exist. If Armenia is viewed only through the lens of the geopolitical competition between Russia and the West, it may lose the room for manoeuvre that has always been essential for countries in its position.
History repeatedly shows that states located between competing powers rarely benefit from choosing permanent confrontation instead of careful balance. Geography cannot be changed, but strategy can and Armenia’s task is therefore not simply to replace one geopolitical orientation with another, but to build a foreign policy that protects national interests while preserving as many strategic options as it is possible.
Conclusion
Armenia is entering into one of the most important periods in its modern history. Closer cooperation with Europe offers real opportunities for democratic reforms, stronger institutions, and economic diversification, while at the same time, worsening relations with Russia, unresolved tensions with Azerbaijan, uncertainty surrounding Iran, and the absence of clear security promises create serious geopolitical risks.
Strategic loneliness is not measured by the number of meetings held with foreign leaders or by the number of international agreements that are signed. It is measured by whether a country has reliable partners it can depend on when a real crisis occurs.
For Armenia, this remains the key challenge, and the country’s future will depend not only on building new partnerships but also on avoiding a situation where diversification leads to strategic isolation. Finding the right balance between these two goals may become Armenia’s most important foreign policy task in the years ahead.
