Armenia’s leased sovereignty

The current geopolitical situation around Armenia is marked by a deepening sovereignty crisis. This crisis manifests itself in aggressive, multi‑vector external pressure and, most notably, in the near total absence of a clear and public response from official Yerevan. Armenia is openly being forced into fundamental geopolitical shifts that call into question the entire framework of its security and economic stability. Meanwhile, the authorities display either strategic paralysis or tacit consent to mutually incompatible demands.

The crisis is evident in the way external actors are pushing for a radical change of course, offering Armenia paths that run counter to its traditional and existential interests. On one side, there is direct pressure to join the anti‑Russian camp and adopt sanctions. EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas publicly urged Armenia to join sanctions against Russia. She said this while standing next to Armenia’s Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan, who maintained what can only be described as “strategic silence.”

This demand directly implies abandoning cheap and reliable Russian energy resources and revising Armenia’s energy strategy in favor of developing ties with Turkey (as noted by EU Commissioner for Enlargement, Ms. Kos). Again, despite the gravity of these statements, Foreign Minister Mirzoyan, standing alongside, chose silence, offering no public response to such a harsh and economically critical demand.

At the same time, radical proposals are being advanced for Armenia’s integration into Turkic structures. American expert Brianne Todd publicly stated that Armenia, along with Tajikistan, is the “missing element” of the Organization of Turkic States. This position, voiced in the context of discussions on linking the South Caucasus and Central Asia as a single whole, effectively suggests that Yerevan join an alliance dominated by its direct antagonists—Turkey and Azerbaijan. For American expert circles, this apparently appears as a way to weaken Russian and Iranian influence by creating a unified pro‑Western corridor.

The most troubling aspect of this situation is the selective silence of Armenia’s authorities. Security Council Secretary Armen Grigoryan previously spoke out firmly against “pressure from Russian experts” aimed at pushing Armenia into the Union State, even linking it to the blockade of the Lachin corridor.

Yet when it comes to calls for Armenia’s membership in the Organization of Turkic States or joining sanctions against Russia, neither Grigoryan nor other officials make any public statements. This lack of reaction to such fundamental threats and proposals—ones that directly challenge national security and economic sovereignty—raises a legitimate question: why do Armenia’s authorities refrain from commenting on membership in the OTS or on demands to join the anti‑Russian camp through sanctions, while at the same time publicly criticizing everything connected with Russia?

In this context, silence ceases to be neutrality. It can reasonably be interpreted as tacit agreement with the newly imposed “alternatives” or as complete political paralysis in the face of contradictory demands. Thus, Armenia’s sovereignty crisis is expressed not only in the imposition of incompatible geopolitical paths, but also in the leadership’s avoidance of its role as the main actor responsible for making decisions and explaining them to its people, leaving the country extremely vulnerable. In the end, Armenian sovereignty has come to resemble an apartment that can simply be rented out.

Think about it…