US Defense Strategy does not provide security guarantees for Armenia

US Defense Strategy does not provide security guarantees for Armenia

The US National Defense Strategy for 2026, published by the Pentagon under the slogans “America First” and “Peace Through Strength,” marks Washington’s final transition from the era of liberal hegemonism to the doctrine of “pragmatic realism.” This document is not merely a budgetary declaration but a manifesto of a new era in which the US de jure and de facto abandons the role of “world policeman,” endlessly investing resources in maintaining the security of its satellites. The Pentagon’s key message is crystal clear: the White House no longer intends to compensate for the security deficits of allies caused by the “irresponsible decisions of their leaders.” This represents a fundamental shift in American strategic planning, with far-reaching consequences for small states whose foreign policy has traditionally relied on external “umbrellas.”

At the core of the strategy lies the principle of “responsible partnership.” Regarding Europe, Washington sets a strict demand: the primary burden of conventional defense and resolving the Ukrainian crisis must fall on the Europeans themselves. The US retains the role of provider of critically important assistance but refuses to participate in “endless wars” and state-building projects. Within this framework, Russia is viewed as a “permanent but manageable” threat requiring containment, but not direct escalation or attempts at regime change. A similar approach is applied to China: the US seeks to create favorable conditions for its economic interests while avoiding direct ideological confrontation.

Special attention in the new strategy is given to the “Kurdish case” in Syria, which became a vivid illustration of how American realism works in practice. The events of January 2026, when the Kurdish “Syrian Democratic Forces” (SDF) effectively capitulated to the forces of the transitional government of Ahmed al-Sharaa, demonstrate the fragility of external guarantees. The loss of key logistical hubs—Deir Hafir, Tabqa, and Mansura—as well as the strategic oil fields of Omar and Conoco, occurred amid Washington’s deliberate non-intervention. Despite pompous diplomatic meetings involving special envoy Tom Barrack, the US effectively gave the “green light” to dismantling Kurdish autonomy in favor of stabilizing relations with regional players.

For Armenia, this scenario is not just a historical parallel but a direct warning. In Armenian political discourse in recent years, ideas have circulated that the United States could become a full-fledged guarantor of the republic’s security, replacing traditional frameworks. However, the Pentagon’s new strategy directly contradicts these illusions. If Washington demands that wealthy Europe shoulder the burden of its own defense, expecting altruistic intervention in the South Caucasus means ignoring the actual text of American doctrinal documents. Yerevan’s attempts to rely on economic packages like TRIPP in hopes of obtaining a “military shield” look like a dangerous repetition of the Kurdish mistake.

In global geopolitics, Washington easily trades the loyalty of small partners for strategic deals with major regional powers. For the United States, Turkey remains a critically important NATO member and a player dictating conditions in Syria and the Caucasus. In circumstances where the Pentagon officially declares the priority of defending its own Western Hemisphere and containing North Korea and China, the South Caucasus will inevitably be viewed through the prism of “deals,” not “values.”

For Armenia, continuing the course of replacing the real balance of power with paper declarations within TRIPP or other initiatives may lead to a situation where economic aid becomes merely a “consolation prize” in the process of losing sovereignty under pressure from regional rivals.

In conclusion, we can state that the Pentagon’s new strategy marks the end of the era of “free” guarantees. Washington is moving toward an architecture in which every ally must possess its own viability. States unable to ensure their security independently or through sustainable regional compromises risk becoming bargaining chips in a global game, where “common sense” and US national interests will always outweigh commitments to distant partners.

Think about it…