Armenia: the Crossroads Power
The Armenian Foreign Minister, Ararat Mirzoyan, opened the Yerevan Dialogue this week by quoting William Saroyan: “Something is wrong somewhere”. It reminded me of another quote from Saroyan I used to use when teaching the history of the Armenian Genocide: “Go ahead, destroy this race. Let us say that it is again 1915. There is war in the world. Destroy Armenia. See if you can do it. Send them from their homes into the desert. Let them have neither bread nor water. Burn their houses and their churches. See if they will not live again. See if they will not laugh again. See if the race will not live again when two of them meet in a beer parlor, twenty years after, and laugh, and speak in their tongue. Go ahead, see if you can do anything about it. See if you can stop them from mocking the big ideas of the world, you sons of bitches, a couple of Armenians talking in the world, go ahead and try to destroy them.” in He Flies Through the Air with the Greatest of Ease: A William Saroyan Reader (2008).
It was especially interesting to be in Yerevan, as the world gears up for COP29 in Baku this November, the stark contrasts between Armenia and Azerbaijan’s trajectories become ever more pronounced, and the Azeri’s rhetoric can sometimes make it sound like they are indeed intent on destroying Armenia. But the evidence from the Yerevan Dialogue, were representatives from 62 states gathered to hear 42 speakers over two days, is that as long as there are a couple of Armenian’s talking in the world, they have a chance. What came through most strongly from these two hot days in Yerevan, between thunderstorms and seemingly endless new rounds of snacks, was that Armenia is playing a complex and potentially risky game to ensure its survival.
On the face of it, Armenia is actively seeking to redefine its place in the world, charting a path toward the West, embracing peace, democracy, and global integration. It is more complex than that, as the dialogue made clear. In contrast, Azerbaijan is deepening its ties with Russia, preparing for further armed aggression, and entrenching authoritarianism while desperately trying to keep up appearances until after COP29. This divergence not only defines the futures of these two nations but also signals broader geopolitical shifts in the region. The paradox is that the world will converge on Azerbaijan—a fossil fuel-producing, human rights abusing dictatorship, and regional aggressor—for a climate change conference, only to witness aggression and tyranny escalate once the global leaders depart.
Armenia’s Pivot: A High-Stakes Gamble
Under the leadership of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Armenia appears to be making a conscious pivot away from Russia, driven by deep disillusionment with the weakening Russian Empire. This shift became more pronounced after Moscow’s failure to protect Armenian interests during Azerbaijan’s September 2023 offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia’s decision to freeze its participation in the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and its request to remove Russian border troops from Yerevan’s Zvartnots airport are emblematic of this pivot away from Moscow. However, this is a high-risk strategy for Pashinyan, whose concessions in the name of peace have been unpopular among those who shaped the Velvet Revolution. Moreover, his tilt away from Moscow is also controversial and could arguably be stopped in its tracks, with the still-powerful pro-Moscow lobby, backed by significant economic connections between Armenia and Russia.
Despite the government’s global ambitions, Armenia’s economy remains heavily reliant on Russia. 42% of Armenian exports are destined for Russia, a figure that dwarfs its trade with other regions. Russian oligarchs have recently acquired a major communications company in Armenia, increasing Moscow’s influence on the Armenian economy and national conversation. The second-largest export destination is the United Arab Emirates at 26%, followed by China at 5%. The EU barely registers in Armenia’s export statistics, and the UK was absent from the graph displayed by Enterprise Armenia this morning as the embassy seemed to be from the event overall. The Yerevan Dialogue, intended to be a platform for Armenia’s future direction, was marked by the absence of significant European or UK investor presence. Instead, the event was dominated by discussions with Indian counterparts, who had co-organised the dialogue, and Gulf and other Global South players, highlighting the growing relationship between Armenia and India, Armenia and the Gulf. In other words the pivot that Yerevan is attempting is not just, or even primarily, westward: it is to the South and to the Gulf. While this is a positive development for Armenia’s diversification of economic partnerships and alliances, it underscores the lack of engagement from the EU and the UK—a gap that Russia is undoubtedly eager to exploit. American weakness was also much commented on. Another Empire in decline? The pull eastward is still strong even if Russia is heavily weakened. The Armenian experience of the fall of Empires is not a happy one. The Armenia Genocide of 1915 was a product of the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Armenia is situated in the disputed lands between regional powers and, as I have written about before, being between the silos of the power groupings in a multi-polar world is a tough place to be.
Contradictions and Challenges at the Yerevan Dialogue
The tone of the Yerevan Dialogue had certain contradictions. On one hand, the Global South confidently asserted its emerging leadership during a period of geopolitical flux. It is about time that we stopped saying that the Global South is emerging and start the conversation from the basis that it is already here. Yet, the economic discussions revealed the persistent reality of US influence. Despite the repeated emphasis on the decline of Pax Americana, it is not the American Empire that is losing ground in this region or has 1000km of it sovereign territory occupied by another power—it is Russia, which is struggling to maintain its grip on Armenia, Georgia and Moldova, amidst shifting global dynamics. Surprisingly, Russia was only mentioned in the context of its invasion of Ukraine, its economic influence was conspicuously absent from discussions – except for the slides when it was impossible to ignore. The absence of Russian and Turkish speakers at the event, coupled with Azerbaijan’s obvious non-attendance, left a noticeable void in what could develop into a comprehensive platform for dialogue – a good role for the crossroads power. But this first event, perhaps inevitably, lacked the critical debate and diverse perspectives necessary for a genuine dialogue on Armenia’s security future. It more than made up for this with the scope and range of discussions on themes outside geopolitics or conflict transformation. Discussions of AI, defense innovation, gendered growth and the future of work were all a good combination of theory and practice, young experts, and highly experienced practitioners. The venue could have been a bit less Dubai and a bit more Yerevan. But the snacks were truly excellent and abundant.
The Need for EU and UK Engagement
The Yerevan Dialogue highlighted the urgent need for the EU and the UK to reassess their approach to Armenia. The country is at a critical juncture, and its future direction is still a work in progress. If the West fails to engage more meaningfully with Armenia, it risks allowing Russia back into a position of strategic influence, (Armenia is lucky not to have its own Ivanishvilli) — a scenario that would have significant geopolitical ramifications for the entire region. Even if this does not happen the West could lose out on the economic possibilities to Southern economic powerhouses.
In place of its historical reliance on Russia, Armenia is seeking to weave itself so deeply into the fabric of regional and wider global trading patterns that it becomes indispensable to multiple key players. This was made clear in presentations by both the Prime Minister and in more detail by the Deputy Minister of Infrastructure. The joint running of the dialogue and the recent proposal to India to establish an alternative trade route bypassing the troubled Red Sea, are strategic moves to integrate Armenia more deeply into global economic networks. They are central to the Crossroads of Peace plan. This initiative reflects Armenia’s growing economic ambitions and its commitment to playing a constructive role in global trade. Aligning with countries like India, which share democratic institutions and economic ambitions that cut across old loyalties, marks a significant departure from Armenia’s traditional alliances but echos 400 years of trading relationships being revived.
Armenia’s approach is also driven by a desire for peace. Despite provocations from Azerbaijan, which continues to push for restrictions on Armenia’s military capabilities and demands for constitutional changes that could undermine Armenia’s sovereignty, Yerevan remains committed to dialogue and diplomacy. The Armenian government has proposed mechanisms for monitoring ceasefire violations and arms control, indicating a willingness to pursue peace even in the face of adversity.
Azerbaijan’s Descent into Authoritarianism and Aggression
In stark contrast, Azerbaijan is moving in a direction that increasingly aligns with Russia’s authoritarian model. Under President Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan has maintained a stance of aggression, both in its foreign policy and towards its own population. The recent crackdown on internal dissent, aimed at silencing opposition ahead of the COP29 summit, is indicative of Aliyev’s strategy to maintain control through repression rather than reform.
Azerbaijan’s foreign policy reflects a similar ethos of domination and control. Despite having secured significant territorial gains in Nagorno-Karabakh, Baku continues to exert pressure on Armenia. These actions are not just about securing Azerbaijan’s interests; they are about asserting dominance in the region. Azerbaijan works closely with Russia while strategically reducing Russian influence, exploiting the superpower’s weakened state due to the war in Ukraine and serving Russia’s economic interests by assisting with the continuing trading in Russian Oil and Gas.
Azerbaijan’s growing alignment with Russia is a troubling sign of broader regional realignment. President Vladimir Putin’s recent visit to Baku was marked by cordiality but also by underlying strategic calculations, driven by Russia’s economic necessity. Azerbaijan’s engagement with Russia, particularly in military and economic spheres, suggests a preference for authoritarian partnerships over democratic ones. Baku is leveraging its relationship with Russia to extract economic benefits, particularly as part of the sanction-busting alternative supply chain with China, Iran, and North Korea. This relationship not only isolates Azerbaijan from the West but also ties its fate to a Russia that is increasingly isolated on the global stage. The UK should take note of the record of the COP29 host nation.
The Broader Geopolitical Implications
As Armenia deepens its ties with the Global South and the Gulf, it stands to gain economically and politically, potentially becoming a model for post-Soviet states in Central Asia seeking to break free from Russia’s orbit. However, significant economic costs and security risks are involved in breaking free from Russian influence. As Georgia’s flip-flopping between Russia and the EU and Moldova’s instability demonstrate, leaving the embrace of the bear is no easy task. In the long run, the success of Armenia’s ambition to be a crossroads power linking multiple regions could encourage pro-Western forces in neighboring countries to persist on the EU path, fostering a more democratic and peaceful South Caucasus. The world should watch these developments closely. Armenia’s success could be a victory for democracy and peace in a region long plagued by conflict.
On the other hand, Azerbaijan’s trajectory serves as a warning of the dangers of aligning with authoritarian regimes and prioritizing power over people. As the private jets arrive for discussions on how to save the planet during COP29, there has been zero cost to Azerbaijan for its armed aggression or its cozy relationship with Putin. In fact, opposition to sanctions has proven to be a lucrative business for Azerbaijan, highlighting the challenges of balancing global climate commitments with the harsh realities of geopolitics. The world faces a stark choice: support Armenia’s courageous pivot toward or watch as Azerbaijan deepens its descent into authoritarianism and aggression. The outcomes of these divergent paths will not only shape the future of these two nations but also signal broader geopolitical shift in the region and the regions connection with Asia and the Gulf. The international community must decide whether to back democracy and peace or allow aggression and tyranny to flourish unchecked.
The Yerevan Dialogue made it clear that while Armenia is eager to mov South and West, its economic ties to Russia remain strong. The UK must recognize the urgency of the situation and step up their engagement with Armenia. Otherwise, they risk losing this pivotal country back to Russian influence, undermining the West’s strategic interests in the region. The time to act is now—before it is too late because soon after the private jets leave Baku after the conclusion of COP29 expect the Azeri President to return to what he sees as unfinished business through a renewed use of force.
The Charlwood Review Books 