Armenia’s strategic realignment amid shifting regional geopolitics
- 23 March, 18:13
Armenia has been navigating a complex geopolitical landscape, marked by regional conflicts and shifting alliances in recent years. The country’s defeat in the war over Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020 prompted Yerevan to re-evaluate its traditional military alliances. In particular, Armenia’s ties with its historic ally Russia deteriorated due to Moscow’s failure to defend the South Caucasus country in the war with neighbouring Azerbaijan. The growing wedge between two allies resulted in Armenia’s suspending its membership of Russian-led military alliance Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in September 2024.
While the gap has been widening between Russia and Armenia, Yerevan has been aiming to mend its ties with Western countries. With the re-election of Donald Trump as the US president, discussions in Armenia regarding potential shifts in American foreign policy have resurfaced. The United States supports the "peace process" between Baku and Yerevan, including the "border delimitation process based upon the Alma Ata Declaration of 1991." The countries intend to broaden the scope of their defense and security cooperation initiatives, "including through establishing bilateral defense consultations within the next year and assisting the Armenian military through professional military assistance training." However, it is crucial to recognize that the fundamental pillars of U.S. foreign policy, particularly in relation to the South Caucasus, remain largely unchanged regardless of the administration in power. While some in Armenia may hope for increased support from Washington and NATO, recent history suggests that such expectations should be tempered by realistic assessment of U.S. priorities in the region.
The Trump administration’s approach to the South Caucasus was marked by a lack of consistent engagement, most notably during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, when the U.S. played a minimal role in preventing hostilities or mediating a lasting settlement. This inaction highlighted a broader disengagement from the region, leaving Armenia without substantial diplomatic or security support. Meanwhile, the Biden administration, despite taking a more structured approach to foreign relations, has not fundamentally altered the U.S. stance on Armenia. Even the landmark security and cooperation agreement signed between the U.S. and Armenia in January 2025 was negotiated and finalized under Biden’s leadership, not as a result of any anticipated policy shifts under a new administration.
Additionally, Armenia’s cooperation with NATO remains an area of strategic interest but is unlikely to yield immediate security guarantees. While NATO has engaged with Armenia through programs such as the Partnership for Peace, its direct influence in the region is limited, and it remains cautious about escalating tensions with Russia. Given these constraints, Armenia is forced to approach its expectations pragmatically, recognizing that while engagement with the U.S. and NATO can bring benefits, it does not equate to unconditional support or security commitments.
Evolving ties with the US
Armenia’s current foreign policy signals a drastic shift away from its historical reliance on Russia, especially following Moscow’s lack of substantial support during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. With its suspension from the CSTO in 2024, Armenia has increasingly turned toward the United States, hoping that a strengthened relationship with the West could serve as a counterbalance to its diminishing ties with Russia. However, while Armenia has sought to diversify its diplomatic and military partnerships, its hopes for robust support from the U.S. must be tempered by the reality of U.S. strategic interests in the South Caucasus.
Historically, Armenia’s relationship with the United States has been one of cooperation and frustration. Although there have been moments of increased engagement, including in governance, human rights, and trade, the United States has not consistently supplied the military assistance that Armenia had hoped for. The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war emphasized this gap. Despite Armenia’s desperate need for diplomatic and military action, the United States had no part in settling the conflict or advocating for a cease-fire with Azerbaijan. The Trump administration’s indifference for the South Caucasus region deepened the sense of abandonment in Armenia. With little pressure from Washington on Azerbaijan, Armenia found itself politically isolated amid a period of serious security concern.
The Biden administration, while offering a more structured approach to international relations, has maintained the status quo when it comes to the South Caucasus. While some in Armenia have viewed Biden’s leadership as an opportunity to form closer ties, the U.S. government’s stance on the region remains influenced by broader geopolitical priorities, such as countering Russian influence and supporting Azerbaijan’s energy and security role. The strategic partnership agreement signed between the U.S. and Armenia in January 2025, though a positive step for Armenia, is not a dramatic shift in policy but the culmination of longstanding diplomatic efforts. The agreement offers some assurance of support in areas like defense, governance reforms, and economic collaboration. However, it falls short of providing the kind of security guarantee that Armenia might expect from a close Western ally.
For Armenia, this shifting relationship with the United States highlights a reality: while the United States is an important partner, it cannot be relied on as a key security guarantor. The United States' interests in the region are not exclusively focused on Armenian security, but also on larger regional stability, energy interests, and ties with significant states such as Russia and Turkey. As a result, Armenia's interaction with Washington, while significant, is part of a larger endeavor to negotiate an extremely difficult geopolitical context.
Cautions engagement with NATO
NATO has been another key component in Armenia’s strategy to broaden its international partnerships and reduce its dependency on Russia. Armenia’s participation in NATO’s Partnership for Peace Program has provided the country with opportunities for military cooperation, joint exercises, and increased interaction with Western allies. While these programs have fostered better relations between Armenia and NATO member states, they have not, however, led to any substantive security guarantees or commitments from the alliance.
Relations with NATO started in 1992, when Armenia joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. Since 2002, Armenia has participated in the Partnerhip for Peace, PFP, which helps develop the ability of Armenia’s forces to work with NATO forces on operations.
A significant factor in Armenia’s cautious engagement with NATO is the complex geopolitical landscape in which it operates. While Armenia has sought to strengthen its ties with NATO, it must also navigate its longstanding security relationship with Russia, which has historically been a dominant influence in the region. NATO’s role in the South Caucasus is constrained by multiple factors, including the alliance’s careful approach to avoid escalating tensions with Russia. As a result, NATO’s involvement with Armenia remains focused on cooperative initiatives, such as defense reforms and joint exercises, rather than offering the direct military support or security guarantees that Armenia desires. The region's security dynamics are also shaped by the various geopolitical interests at play, and NATO's capacity to provide more comprehensive support to Armenia is limited by these broader considerations.
Armenia's collaboration with NATO is focused on diversification rather than full inclusion into the alliance. The Partnership for Peace initiative has enabled Armenia to collaborate with NATO on issues such as defense reform, border security, and peacekeeping missions. However, it is important to stress that NATO's reluctance to actively engage in the South Caucasus is not just motivated by its need to avoid conflict with Russia; it is also linked to NATO's strategic priorities, which are focused on Europe and the wider transatlantic region. NATO's role in Armenia and the South Caucasus is restricted to a soft-power strategy that emphasizes diplomatic engagement and collaboration over direct military commitments.
NATO has provided support for Armenia's internal reforms, particularly in the areas of democratic government and the rule of law. Armenia's involvement in NATO initiatives has helped to modernize its defense structures while also providing vital training and strategic development opportunities. These advantages are especially significant as Armenia attempts to modernize its military and improve its defense capabilities in the wake of persistent regional conflicts.
Armenia has simultaneously expanded its military collaboration with the United States, further broadening its security alliances. On September 11, U.S. and Armenian forces initiated the Eagle Partner joint military exercise at the Zar and Armavir training grounds near Yerevan. Although limited in scale, involving 175 Armenian and 85 U.S. soldiers, the drill underscores the growing defense relationship between the two countries. The involvement of the 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, and the Kansas Army National Guard highlights the ongoing impact of U.S. military initiatives in Armenia, particularly through the National Guard Bureau’s State Partnership Program, which has linked Kansas and Armenia since 2003.
While Armenian and U.S. troops have previously participated in multinational exercises, Eagle Partner represents the first exclusively bilateral military engagement held in Armenia. Its timing is particularly notable, occurring amid heightened tensions between Yerevan and Moscow, as well as the worsening humanitarian situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. Beyond its direct military objectives, the exercise reflects Armenia’s broader effort to strengthen ties with Western security allies while maneuvering through the region’s intricate geopolitical landscape.
However, Armenia must remain realistic in its expectations of NATO. While cooperation with the alliance enhances Armenia’s international profile and brings valuable technical and diplomatic support, it is unlikely to result in immediate or robust security guarantees. Armenia’s NATO engagement can contribute to regional stability and bolster its defense readiness, but it does not replace the security assurances that Armenia once sought from the CSTO and Russia. This pragmatic approach to NATO reflects Armenia’s awareness of the complexities of the geopolitical environment and its need to pursue multiple avenues of international cooperation, even if those avenues do not guarantee the kind of security backing, it might have hoped for. Ultimately, Armenia’s strategy of engaging with NATO and the U.S. underscores a broader desire to avoid over-dependence on any single power while securing its sovereignty and regional stability.
The shift in Armenia’s foreign policy is a deliberate reaction to the evolving diplomatic and security environment in the region. Armenia is forced to accept the fact that it cannot rely entirely on external actors to provide it’s security needs as it breaks from the CSTO and looks into forging closer ties with Western organizations. Although there are opportunities for cooperation, the United States and NATO are unable to give Armenia the complete security guarantees it originally desired because of their own regional strategic interests.
This pragmatic approach allows Armenia to diversify its alliances and strengthen its international standing, but it also highlights the limitations of external support in addressing its security concerns. Ultimately, Armenia's success will depend on its ability to balance relationships with multiple powers, while reinforcing its own defense capabilities and ensuring stability at home. In a volatile geopolitical environment, Armenia must remain adaptable and realistic in its expectations, understanding that true security comes from a combination of strategic partnerships and domestic resilience.
