Being in a long confrontation with Azerbaijan and under the constant threat of its military attack, Armenia today finds itself in conditions of political turbulence. After the complete dearmenization of Artsakh, when Azerbaijan announced the restoration of its territorial integrity it seemed to many that Armenia had no problems with Azerbaijan and Turkey. Many layers of Armenians, including the political leadership of Armenia, suddenly found out that neither Azerbaijan nor Turkey intends to establish peaceful and good-neighborly relations with Armenia. It was only then that many realized that the conflict over Artsakh was only part of the Armenian-Turkish enmity, and that having seized it, these two neighbors would not cease to pose existential threats to our homeland.
So what kind of uncertainty and futility lie at the heart of Armenia’s relations with its neighbors? What is the reason for the political turbulence that haunts us? After all, a country’s place in the world is determined by its relations with other states. The world is interested in us first of all from the point of view of our relations with our neighbors. The nature of cooperation, alliances and confrontations define the essence of international relations. This is how paths to articulating various interests and obtaining certain roles in the international arena are opened up.
Relations with Turkey and one’s own worldview
The history of Armenian-Turkish relations spans a little over a century. Everything that concerns the role of ethnic Armenians in the Sultan’s government, various millets, ethno-religious groups in the Ottoman Empire and not fully formed identities (such as “Turkish” (Tatchik) Armenians), as well as cultural interactions should not be attributed to these relations. Armenian-Turkish relations began to take shape in 1908 during the Young Turk uprising in the Ottoman Empire, when Turkish identity, including its image, worldview, values, rights, interests and demands started to develop, and in the process of subsequent geopolitical shifts that made these relations hostile, including the genocidal actions of 1915 that continue to this day.
Since the beginning of the formation of a unified Turkish nation, Armenians and Turks have never lived in peace.
From this point of view, this century-long confrontation is unique in world history.
Having gained independence as a result of the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the Republic of Armenia entered the vortex of international relations armed with an obsession with the idea of the threat of Armenian-Turkish hostilities to the existence of an independent Armenia and the need to resolve or at least neutralize them. Proceeding from a similar premise, many intellectual strata, based on the historical experience of the 1910-20s and the data indicating Turkey’s military, political and economic power in the region, comparing the latter with Armenia’s capabilities, tried to find a solution to the issue either in the rejection of certain principles or in the strict defense of certain principles on the part of the Armenians.
Thus, Armenian political thought was divided into two ideological camps: supporters of establishing relations with Turkey through direct negotiations or neutralizing Turkey’s threats with the help of third countries.
The first camp was joined by all those who envisioned Armenia’s independent future in the region only through the settlement of relations with Turkey at any cost. From the very beginning of the 1990s, especially through the transformation of the “third force exclusion law” into a concept by the well-known intellectual Rafael Ishkhanyan, the idea that the Armenians were targeted by the Turks only because they were constantly a tool to serve the interests of other powers, particularly Russia, was propagated to the general public. On this basis, if the Armenian people refuse to become part of the anti-Turkish programs of third powers, there will be opportunities to come to an agreement with the Turks and live peacefully.
The hopes of the supporters of the second camp were linked to the involvement in the political agenda of foreign powers. According to the beliefs of this camp, since Turkey and its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, have been at various times at enmity with the superpowers, especially Russia, they should be used to neutralize the threat emanating from Turkey. Representatives of this camp constantly argue about the relations of modern Turkey with the outside world. One side believes that the relations between Russia and Turkey, despite some deviations, are hostile in essence and historical load. Hence, Armenia’s pro-Russian stance is the most preferable course to neutralize external existential threats. The other side finds the relations between Turkey and the West more problematic, from which it follows that a pro-Western course is more preferable.
As we can see, the pro-Russian and pro-Western positions of the Armenian public are derivatives of the same vision of Armenian-Turkish relations. Only the civilizational, historical, military, technological and other justifications differ. Both are experiencing regular disappointment and shifting foreign policy orientations depending on Western or Russian support, but more so on Turkey’s strategic cooperation with Russia and the West.
When this binary vision is complemented by a position on establishing relations with Turkey through direct negotiations, a holistic picture of Armenians’ own worldview emerges. It reflects our specific perceptions of our own resources, our place and significance in the global world. All the unlearned lessons of Armenian history are direct evidence of the unchanging nature of this worldview.
Stretching your legs… as far as the blanket allows
According to the deep conviction that has spread among Armenians, the Armenian nation, despite its great past and intellectual potential, is only a small community in comparison with other nations, possessing a small territory and few resources and unable to take care of its own security. The words of Movses Khorenatsi of many centuries ago are especially widespread: “Though we may be a small and often conquered nation, our history contains many valiant deeds worthy of record”. Folk wisdom says: “stretch your legs as far as the blanket allows”.
Pro-Russian, pro-Western, supporters of reconciliation with Turkey at any cost are united by the assessment of the Armenian people as a small, weak, powerless community surrounded by the Turkish sea, and thus unable to rely on itself. Thus, it is necessary either to reconcile with the Turks or to remain an anti-Turkish outpost (bridgehead, bastion, etc.) subordinate to the great powers.
It is the dismissive perception of one’s own political weight that conditions a mindset that is inhabited by expectations or perceptions associated with “master,” “big brother,” “savior,” and “traitor.”
Against the backdrop of centuries of Armenian-Turkish enmity and 30 years of Armenian-Azerbaijani confrontation, the events of 2020-2024 have deepened the public’s conviction that it is necessary to solve its own security problems through reconciliation with the Turks or the involvement of foreign powers. The basics have already been proven many times: that neither Turkey nor Azerbaijan are willing to coexist peacefully with Armenia, that Turks still adhere to the belief that “the condition for the existence of Turks is the non-existence of Armenians”, that Azerbaijan has made Armenophobia part of its official policy, that the image of Armenians as an enemy is necessary for the formation and maintenance of the national identity of Turks and Azerbaijanis, that, like the Armenian issue, the Karabakh conflict has always been and will remain only a tool to serve the interests of other countries, that there are no friends in politics, and that the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict has always been and will remain a tool to serve the interests of other countries. It seems that everyone resorts to these arguments. But the Armenian political class, guided by the original “Armenian Realpolitik”, always goes back to square one.
The problem lies in the ingrained thinking of Armenians. For almost 600 years, Armenians have been living according to the concept developed by the Armenian Church claiming the necessity of submission to the Islamic but Christ-loving regional rulers for the sake of salvation. And since Israel Ori, the agenda of liberation of the Armenian people through Christian European powers has become part of the political practice. Dozens of generations were nurtured by the arguments of these two concepts, gained life experience and became bearers of certain “truths” based on them. This is how the worldview of the modern Armenian was formed who believes that the forces and means of the Armenian people are insufficient to solve the security problems, therefore they are secondary. The programs of reconciliation with the Turks at any cost or alliance with Russia or Western powers are paramount.
Lessons about the need for self-determination, self-reliance, following one’s own concepts and strategic programs, building one’s own security system, and showing political will in international relations remain unlearned by the Armenian people.
The examples of the self-defense of Van, the Battle of Sardarapat, the war for the freedom of Mountainous Armenia, “Nemesis” operation, the first victorious war in Artsakh, the liberation of Shushi and other glorious pages of our history become not manifestations of our own will and strength, but accidents, sometimes even manifestations of others’ covert military-political programs, the participation of the Armenian people in which, according to these people, is overrated.
The current political turbulence of the Republic of Armenia is a consequence of a vicious worldview, in which there is no room for independent thought, will and effort. This is how our ideological ineptitude is proved.
These views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the “Armenian Republic”.
