Armenia’s sovereignty and national security are threatened not only by external forces but also by the failures of its own leadership. Azerbaijan’s ambitions have long been clear—leveraging military force and diplomatic pressure to consolidate territorial gains. Yet what has turned these challenges into existential threats is not merely Baku’s aggression but the incompetence of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. His miscalculations, indecisiveness, and misguided policies have dismantled Armenia’s ability to navigate regional threats, transforming a manageable conflict into a national catastrophe. In effect, Pashinyan himself has become the greatest threat to Armenia’s security, enabling Azerbaijan’s aggression through his own failures. Azerbaijan’s strategic objectives have remained consistent, but Armenia’s ability to counter them has eroded due to Pashinyan’s leadership. His tenure has been marked by a series of missteps that have weakened Armenia’s military preparedness, diplomatic leverage, and internal cohesion. The 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, the mass displacement of Armenians, and the country’s growing geopolitical isolation all stem from a single failure: a leader lacking the diplomatic, strategic, and military-political acumen to safeguard the nation’s interests. His errors did not begin in 2020; they were evident from the moment he took office in 2018, armed with revolutionary rhetoric but devoid of a coherent foreign policy vision. His leadership has left Armenia vulnerable to Azerbaijan’s threats, transforming what could have been a strong defensive posture into one of weakness and surrender. Instead of formulating a realistic regional policy and a robust defense strategy, Pashinyan oscillated between nationalist bravado and conciliatory overtures—neither backed by a credible diplomatic and security framework. His government ignored intelligence warnings, failed to prepare for Azerbaijan’s military buildup, and mismanaged relations with Russia while alienating traditional partners without securing viable alternatives. One of his most catastrophic misjudgments was believing that political rhetoric could substitute for strategic foresight. When tested by war, he was unprepared. When faced with diplomatic fallout, he was indecisive and often clueless. When given opportunities to course-correct, he doubled down on policies that further eroded Armenia’s position. Now, as Pashinyan’s personal security becomes increasingly tied to his grip on power, his foreign policy decisions seem driven more by self-preservation than by national interest. His pivot toward the West has been executed recklessly, alienating Russia without securing tangible Western guarantees. A pragmatic realignment could have benefited Armenia if approached strategically. Instead, his government has relied on symbolic gestures—such as floating EU accession—while failing to establish a concrete security framework. His ill-timed adoption of Armenia’s EU membership law coincided with key geopolitical developments, including J.D. Vance’s speech in Munich and the start of Russia-U.S. talks, signaling a new geopolitical realignment with undoubtedly significant implications for the Caucasus. This glaring miscalculation underscores Pashinyan’s lack of awareness of global dynamics. Rather than positioning Armenia to maximize its leverage, he continues to act in a vacuum, blind to the larger geopolitical forces at play. For all its shortcomings, Russia has historically been Armenia’s primary security guarantor. While grievances over Moscow’s failures are valid, severing ties without securing alternatives is strategically reckless. Diplomacy is not about grandstanding; it is about leveraging relationships to maximize national security. Under Pashinyan, Armenia has become isolated—alienated from Moscow, unsupported by the West, and vulnerable to Azerbaijani pressure. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan’s demands continue to escalate. President Ilham Aliyev’s ambitions extend beyond Nagorno-Karabakh and the subjugation of its leadership; they include Armenia’s disarmament, the forced resettlement of Azerbaijanis in Armenia proper, and territorial concessions that undermine Armenian sovereignty. These are not mere aggressive postures—they represent an existential challenge to Armenia’s future. Yet Pashinyan’s response has been passive, failing to impose any cost on Azerbaijan’s actions. His government has absorbed one diplomatic and military setback after another, eroding Armenia’s deterrence capabilities and leaving it increasingly exposed. Azerbaijan may be the aggressor, but it is Pashinyan’s failures that have made Aliyev’s ambitions achievable. Armenia needs new leadership—a leader who understands the balance of power, who can craft a credible security policy, and who can engage in diplomacy from a position of strength rather than desperation. Pashinyan has demonstrated time and again that he is incapable of fulfilling this role. The longer he remains in power, the greater the risk that Armenia’s sovereignty will erode—piece by piece, concession by concession—until nothing remains of the state’s independence. The time for change is now. Armenia must reclaim its agency, redefine its security priorities, and rebuild its diplomatic credibility.
