How in 4 years the state turned into a territory

The 44-day Artsakh war was, among other factors, the culmination of the failure of Armenian diplomacy.

After coming to power in 2018, Nikol Pashinyan started pursuing such a heated, contradictory and uncalculated foreign policy, which promised a guaranteed catastrophe, which happened in 2020.

It seemed to Nikol Pashinyan and maybe even now it seems that the “revolution” he carried out was such an epoch-making and unprecedented event that the world would bow down if not to Armenia, then at least to itself.

As a result, he had to bow several thousand times in front of the graves of the victims of the 44-day war.

But it is not that the only negative consequence of Armenia’s failed foreign policy and diplomacy was the 44-day war.

Yes, it was the most tragic, but not the only one.

In fact, after 2018, Armenia has registered failures and setbacks in almost all possible directions of foreign policy.
Armenian-Russian relations have deteriorated to the point of inadmissibility. The petty cunning often justified in domestic politics, the evasion of commitments in general, and the rift in foreign policy in general, have led to a dangerous level of relations with Armenia’s strategic ally.

The same applies almost equally to Armenia’s relations with other geopolitical burdens and countries.

Nikol Pashinyan, who declared himself pro-rational, but in fact did not have any orientation, in fact overthrew the saturated agenda of relations with the European Union, which he had inherited from the previous government.

The Deep and Comprehensive Partnership Agreement (CEAP), signed in Brussels in November 2017, contained a huge framework and opportunities for relations with the European Union, even a small part of which has not been implemented in the past four years. It is about raising the level of political dialogue, as well as opportunities for strengthening and materializing economic relations, which have simply been wasted by the current authorities.

It is a similar picture in relations with the United States, with which relations have been reduced to the level of ritual relations.

By appointing Lilit Makunts as ambassador to the United States, Nikol Pashinyan finally showed the seriousness of Armenia’s attitude towards that superpower, or rather its absence.

Over the past four years, a significant setback has been registered in relations with neighboring and friendly Iran, one of the evidences of which is the recent deepening of Iranian political and economic ties with Azerbaijan and Turkey, naturally bypassing Armenia.

The picture is the same in relations with another geopolitical center and a major player, China. Absence of substantive agendas and any tangible project, purely declarative statements of deepening relations.

The sum of the total failure of Armenian diplomacy is that Armenia, as a state, has ceased to be interesting for any country or geopolitical center. Everyone is only interested in the territory of Armenia, the communications passing through it, but not in the state as a subject of international relations.

Now everyone talks and agrees about Armenia and about Armenia, but already without Armenia, due to the almost complete absence of the latter’s subjectivity.

Harutyun Avetisyan