'Some countries oppose Armenia becoming Russia’s backyard': Debates in Yerevan
Situation in Caucasus after war in Ukraine
Armenia has been closely following the recent Trump-Zelensky talks at the White House, particularly the heated exchange between the leaders and the failed minerals agreement. Experts are now assessing not just the outcomes of the Russia-Ukraine war but also its impact on the South Caucasus.
Political analyst Tigran Grigoryan expects Washington’s involvement in the region to decline, suggesting that the European Union could theoretically fill this “significant vacuum.” Meanwhile, analyst Areg Kochinyan disagrees, arguing that Armenia is not in a geopolitical void: “There is Iran, Turkey, the EU, and China with its ‘Middle Corridor’ project, which will inevitably pass through the South Caucasus. In short, several countries have no interest in seeing Russia turn the Caucasus, and Armenia in particular, into its backyard again.” However, he questions who will be willing to invest the necessary resources and to what extent.
- ‘Armenia must decouple from Russia without collapse’: view from Yerevan
- Pashinyan’s response to Putin: ‘Armenia has passed the point of no return’
- ‘Trump’s rejection of isolationism could weaken Russia’s influence’- opinion from Yerevan
“Just forget everything and call Putin s great guy?”
The February 28 meeting between the U.S. and Ukrainian presidents in the Oval Office turned into a heated debate after Volodymyr Zelensky raised the issue of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea. He stressed that Putin occupied Ukrainian territories, killed people, and left Ukraine feeling abandoned. Attempts to negotiate peace with the Russian leader had failed, Zelensky argued, which is why Ukraine needs guaranteed security.
Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance accused Zelensky of ingratitude following his remarks. In response, the Ukrainian president warned that while the U.S. is separated from Europe by an ocean, sooner or later, Americans would feel the consequences of this war.
After the meeting, Trump stated that Zelensky was “not ready for peace” and suggested he return to the White House when he is. Meanwhile, in an interview with Fox News, Zelensky emphasized that while U.S. support is crucial for Ukraine to resist Russia, his country cannot sacrifice its values, people, or freedom.
“The Russians came to our land, they entered our homes, and they killed so many people. Just forget all that and call Putin a great guy? No, not with us,” Zelensky declared.
Expert commentary
Political analyst Tigran Grigoryan suggests:
“The radical shift in the U.S. position on Ukraine, America’s determination to stop the Russo-Ukrainian war at any cost, and its focus on other issues offer no hope that the U.S. will develop any interest in the South Caucasus. Given the events of recent weeks, as well as the clearly transactional and self-serving nature of American foreign policy, this might not be the worst possible scenario. Under such an approach, Azerbaijan—not Armenia—has stronger prerequisites for finding common ground with the American administration.
However, a decline in U.S. engagement will create a serious vacuum in the region, which, in theory, could be filled by the European Union.
Meanwhile, the fundamental changes taking place in American politics are already snowballing. Leading European nations have revived discussions on the need for the EU’s strategic autonomy. However, considering the EU’s decision-making processes, its enormous technological dependence on the U.S., and several other factors, this is a long-term process.
Moreover, in the short term, these changes could even lead to a decline in European engagement in various regions, as all resources will be redirected toward strengthening their own defense capabilities.
For example, the UK has already decided to increase its military budget at the expense of cuts to foreign aid and international development funding.
Under these conditions, the policy pursued by the Armenian authorities in recent years—centering on expectations of international support—has become entirely obsolete. The significance of ‘legitimate’ behavior on the international stage for ensuring Armenia’s security and sovereignty can now be considered negligible.
If the Armenian government fails to adjust its mindset, rhetoric, and understanding of security tools accordingly, it may find itself in an even more difficult position than Zelensky in the White House. After all, there are players in our region who enthusiastically welcome Trump’s methods and style of foreign policy.”
Political analyst Areg Kochinyan believes:
“The possible outcomes—1) victory [for Russia], 2) defeat, or 3) neither victory nor defeat—will all be extremely negative.
If Russia wins, it will become a state that has successfully used force to resolve defiance within the post-Soviet space. And this would mean the crushing of a large country. In such a case, at least in its own mind, nothing would prevent Russia from doing the same to everyone else—especially to the much smaller states of the South Caucasus.
If it suffers defeat, we will be dealing with an enraged yet simultaneously repressed regime. Just as Iraq needed a victorious war after its conflict with Iran—leading to its invasion of Kuwait—a similar scenario could unfold here.
At this stage, any resolution of the war in Ukraine carries immense risks for the states of the South Caucasus. As for Armenia, unlike Georgia and Azerbaijan, we do not share a border with Russia. This is perhaps the only geographical advantage we have.
Of course, there is another layer to consider. Regardless of the outcome of the war in Ukraine, Russia will find itself in an extremely difficult position—economically, militarily, and politically. As a result, it will take Russia a very long time to recover.”
