Commitment to political realism is one of the 10 key principles of the Ideological Doctrine of the Armenian Republic. All the materials published by the editorial board proceed from the logic of realism in international relations. We have devoted a number of articles and comments to its analysis (in particular, about the alliance in world politics, about the effect of this principle on the example of the war between Israel and Hamas and the rise of small states).
This series will continue until realism finally forms the basis of the Armenian state’s foreign policy – or it will disappear. Perhaps, this is the note on which it is worth starting this year, since the distracting manoeuvres at the end of 2024 were enough to make it seem to many that the trend of constant losses that became apparent in 2020 has finally been broken. Of course, gradually taking control of our own borders is great news. However, it is bedevilled by some hard facts. First of all, it is apparent that Russia did the Armenian time-servers the favour of leaving Zvartnots airport and sections of the border with Iran in exchange for their greater loyalty. Secondly, it is simply absurd to rejoice at such news not only amidst the loss of Artsakh, but also the loss of control and any sort of presence in a part of the territory of the Republic of Armenia. And, thirdly, the aesthetic changes are designed only to distract the Armenian world from the deeper processes of abandoning the idea of acquiring sovereignty in general.
Thus, on the one hand, we are lulled into good news, and on the other, we are constantly kept in a state of shock in the framework of the information war waged against us by the Turkish world and its henchman, Commandant Pashinyan, so that this hibernation does not stop. For, if we woke up, we would realise that our body had long been infected with parasites and that we were partially paralysed – because our brain is not responsible for our actions. If we had at least minimal immunity, like any other living organism, we would at least have fever, signalling that we felt the threat and we were trying to remove it from our blood supply system. Unfortunately, there are so many of them in the current situation, while the immunodeficiency is so severe that the Armenian world no longer recognises the deadly elements.
So, what does it mean to be realistic and how can it help to revive the Armenian state? Spoiler alert: Nikol Pashinyan’s ‘Real Armenia’ has nothing to do with realism.
The essence of political realism
Finally, it is important to talk about the basics of realism. Anyone who has ever studied international relations knows them, but since this is not obvious even to experienced Armenian diplomats, it would certainly not be superfluous to determine the content of a realistic view of the world. We know that realism differs from idealism in that it sees the world as it is – as anarchy, where no global sovereign exists and each state must defend itself. This is especially true for small states that face existential threats from stronger and more aggressive neighbours, and therefore their survival in a hostile environment, like no other, is based on the correct adaptation of the principles of realism, the correct assessment of the intentions and calculations of the enemy, their own strengths and weaknesses, as well as compensation of the latter at the expense of the former.
In practice, this means not giving up any struggle for the realisation of national interests, but replenishing quantity with quality, developing immunity and resilience, and using diplomacy – in general, a set that is obvious to everyone except the leaders of the Third Republic. The idea of abandoning the pursuit of national interests due to its small size and thereby contributing to an even greater reduction of its own territory and population, while simultaneously whetting with its own carelessness the appetite of an enemy that does not hide its expansionist and genocidal intentions, is directly contrary to realism.
Here it is important to refer to another crucial yet devalued term due to its frequent use in vain – the national interest. Every meaningful state built by a truly national aristocracy formulates its own interest, but one way or another it is always linked to its sovereignty and security, while the might, the power of the state is a key means of achieving it. This power is not necessarily limited to military capacity, although it is an essential component of it. Economics and diplomacy, the presence of allies – all this affects the balance of power. It is only important not to confuse the presence of allies with blind hopes for an abstract ‘international community’ and multilateral cooperation, as the authorities of the Third Republic have done so far and continue to do. Small states cannot afford the luxury of idealism.
Let us turn to a classic example – the famous Melos episode from the ‘History of the Peloponnesian War’ by Thucydides, considered to be the founder of realism. Idealistic residents of Melos Island, attacked by superior Athenians, predictably suffer the fate of Artsakh, although, of course, the vulnerability of Artsakh in the face of the military aggression by Azerbaijan and Turkey was not inevitable. However, the more interesting thing is what happened next: Athenians themselves forgot about realism, being intoxicated by boundless cynicism, glory and achievements. Guided by the same ‘interest’ based on which they conquered Melos, they attacked Sicily and lost the big war. Armenia is able to become the very Sicily for the Turkish world, but if someone expects that it is enough to intoxicate Azerbaijan with victories, then they are fatally mistaken – the territories of the Third Republic will end much faster. The lesson of this story is that it is dangerous to ignore state power, but it is equally dangerous to rely solely on it. The current Armenian leadership blindly uses only this indicator to assess the balance of power in the region and deliberately plays along with ‘the strongest’.
The arsenal of small states
As we have repeatedly shown in our materials, small does not mean weak. Of course, small states are small because they are more limited in the resources needed to dominate the system of international relations. As a rule, they cannot set the rules of the game, let alone force other players to obey them. However, realism is not the scourge of small states, but their path to survival.
Adepts of Pashinyan and the idea of Armenia destined to concessions and defeats will not be able to explain why countries such as Singapore and Finland invest in their own security or why Ireland managed not only to free itself from the British colonial rule, but also to become a key player in the global system of international relations.
Limited finances are not an argument for a country with a huge community resource, and the above-mentioned countries, as well as Israel, have not been rich since gaining independence and have not always had a fortunate geographical location. If they had their own Pashinyan and the ‘Civil Contract’ party, they would have assumed that resistance would be useless and they’d need to satisfy all the territorial claims of their sworn neighbours.
Unfortunately, the rejection of realism is not limited to the defeatist sentiments of the Armenian leadership. At the same time, it inspires the Armenian world with false optimism, proudly demonstrating the ‘security’ of the ‘new’ borders of Armenia (not even delimited, but only demarcated, that is, still ‘unrecognised’). The ‘public’ can’t get enough of how the Armenian ‘borders’ have strengthened under Nikol Pashinyan, but it just doesn’t take into account that if it was ‘high time’, then it’s too late now. The fact is that the enormous resources and efforts (the very ones that Armenia ‘does not have’ to prepare for the real war and avoid it) are being directed towards the construction of the Maginot Line, which is absolutely useless in the current realities.
At the same time, of course, one cannot but welcome the statements about the construction of a ‘total defence’ system in Armenia based on the Finnish model, however, it is difficult to imagine its implementation against the background of the denial of the ‘nation-army’ concept. It should be recalled that Finland has a quite long border with Russia, but this did not prevent the state from investing in national security (and at the same time in social welfare), while maintaining close relations with Russia to the last and not abandoning its own identity and the democratic domestic policy based on it. The country applied for NATO membership only in 2022, having reassessed its neighbour’s potential intentions and its own risks and abilities. Moreover, Finland has been actively involved in global processes as a peacekeeping force for decades, thus combining commitment to ethics and ideals with realism in foreign policy and security matters.
***
Even the largest players in international relations do not rely on ‘the end of history’ and ‘eternal peace’. Absolutely all global and regional powers prepare for confrontation in an attempt to avoid it, and only Armenia fancies itself the ‘crossroads of peace’ (by the way, Pashinyan should think about whether this offends Georgia, which has gone much further in attracting Turkish ‘investments’). At the same time, not drawing lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic and the blockade of Artsakh, the country’s leadership is not taking steps to ensure basic food security, not to mention the technological, energy, environmental security, etc.
In order to carry out a realistic audit of its own resources and direct them to serve its national interests, Armenia first needs to determine its national interest. Such meaningful work can only be undertaken by a true national aristocracy that knows the Armenian world and the complexity of the world around it, a real elite that understands the responsibility of decision-making and is able to tear down the Berlin wall dividing disparate Armenian communities and the Armenian state and mobilise them in the name of solving nationwide problems. Human capital is the most precious resource of the Armenian world, which can essentially shift any geopolitical alignment and, unlike oil reserves, has no earthly ceilings. The Third Republic not only neglected this asset, but also made sure to reduce the energetic and passionate Armenian, first in Spyurk (communities abroad) and now in Eastern Armenia, to an impersonal ID in the bookkeeping records.
If we do not take up this job right now, if we don’t bring Armenia and the Armenian world back to one another, the lightness of being in Yerevan, Lyon, Glendale, and Moscow will become truly unbearable – and we will simply disappear. Peace, friendship, and chewing gum in today’s world are guaranteed only to the dead. Oddly enough, the more leaders think like true realists, the greater the chances for peace are. For opportunists, only the peace of the graveyard is in store.
