EVN Security Report: July 2024

Listen to the audio version of the July Security Report 

There has been much discussion, and at times attempts at deciphering, the underlying rationale and strategic policy goals of the United States with respect to its role, engagement, and growing investment in Armenia’s nascent security architecture. From the generic East-West competition discourse to spurious claims of a hidden American agenda, much of the analysis and conversation in Armenia has struggled to acutely qualify and precisely diagnose the overarching framework guiding America’s growing and in parallel fashion, intensifying, involvement in enhancing Armenia’s security environment. To more cogently understand the strategic framework guiding America’s engagement with Armenia’s security landscape, and to develop the conceptual basis upon which the American approach can be aligned with policy thinking within Armenia, the concept of “defense diplomacy” is introduced in this month’s report.

Defense Diplomacy as Military Statecraft

Defense diplomacy is generally defined as the nonviolent use of military forces through numerous sets of bilateral and multilateral activities to further a given country’s international and diplomatic objectives. Terms such as defense engagement, military diplomacy, and defense cooperation are used interchangeably to qualify this important utilization of military capabilities for the attainment of international political capital and policy goals. In this context, the concept can more simply be understood as the use of military resources and capabilities to achieve foreign policy objectives through nonviolent means. Important components of defense diplomacy include the building of trust, assisting the targeted nation in the development of their armed forces, institutionalization of civilian oversight, utilization of both traditional and non-traditional forms of security, professional development and transfer of military science and education, and expanding soft power. Just as importantly, defense diplomacy can just as easily be defined by what it does not include: offensive military operations. 

From the lens of the United States, success cannot solely be achieved through military coercion; rather, success is more a function of shaping the behavior of friends, foes, but most importantly, those in between. Defense diplomacy, therefore, integrates soft power with hard power mechanisms, utilizing the military, traditionally a hard power construct, as a soft power instrument. Thus, for U.S. grand strategists, defense diplomacy has emerged as one of the most important tools of military statecraft, where America’s immense defense apparatus is used nonviolently to advance the strategic aims of Washington through cooperation with other countries. Within the context of this structure of cooperation, the Euro-Atlantic partnership, whether through the institutional levers of NATO, or the bilateral relations the U.S. has with individual European countries, has exponentially enhanced the scope and strength of defense diplomacy.

In comparative terms, when observing these initial stages of US (the role of the Euro-Atlantic partnership may also be included in this) defense diplomacy at work in Armenia, there’s an observable and clear difference between Russia’s use of military statecraft and that of the U.S. Namely, where Russia has failed, and where the United States has made inroads, is precisely the structural basis upon which the success of defense diplomacy explains Armenia’s vigorous pivot towards the West: Russia understands defense only through the prism of hard power, thus viewing Armenia-Russia relations as one of subjugation and subservience, while the United States views Armenia-US defense relations as one of supporting, nurturing, and aligning Armenia’s security interests with that of the United States. The speed at which 30 years of Russian security thinking collapsed within Armenia is directly correlated with the speed and intensity of U.S. defense diplomacy.  

The structural approach of U.S. defense diplomacy, as a metric in allowing us to understand how it will proceed with Armenia, can be qualified through one quick, comparative case study: Eastern Europe. After the end of the Cold War, the United States took the initiative of using its own armed forces, along with its Euro-Atlantic allies, to help reconstruct the armed forces and the security architecture of the former Warsaw Pact countries. Through numerous and wide-ranging initiatives, the Euro-Atlantic structure mobilized its defense establishments in order to reform the militaries of Eastern Europe. In this context, programs, for example, like the NATO Partnership for Peace were developed in order to help instill democratic norms of civil-military relations and to “integrate Eastern Europe into existing collective security organs like the European Union and NATO.” These endeavors highlighted the evolution of the U.S. defense establishment as a tool of statecraft beyond its traditional capacity for warfare or offensive military operations. In this context, the success of the U.S.-led efforts to reform the militaries of Eastern Europe was predicated not simply on the capacity of Euro-Atlantic forces to impose their will, but rather, their ability to constructively engage their Eastern European partners and through cooperation and collaboration achieve the desired objectives. The successful transition of the former Warsaw Pact countries from Soviet militaries to modern military forces, and the transition in thinking and culture, from the outdated Soviet model to the more advanced Western model, was achieved through the successful implementation of defense diplomacy by the United States and its Euro-Atlantic allies.    

Defense Diplomacy and Armenia

To develop a more nuanced understanding of defense diplomacy, and to draw a parallel between what Armenia has received and what Armenia can expect to receive from America’s defense diplomacy, a general outline of the types of activities that defense diplomacy entails are provided as follows: 

1. Bilateral and multilateral contacts between senior military and civilian officials.
2. Training of military and civilian defense personnel.
3. Provision of expertise and advice on democratic control of armed forces, defense management and military technical areas.
4. Placement of military or civilian personnel in partner country’s defense ministry.
5. Contacts and exchanges between military personnel and units at various levels.
6. Deployment of training teams for numerous defense sector areas.
7. Provision of military equipment.
8. Bilateral or multilateral military exercises.
9. Bilateral defense cooperation agreements. 

In developing a conceptual treatment of the types of activities that U.S. defense diplomacy entails, and the growing state of U.S.-Armenia defense relations, we are able to better understand the nature and scope of America’s engagement and involvement in Armenia’s defense sector. More so, with the diminishing of Russian influence in Armenia, America’s, and by extension, the Euro-Atlantic partnership’s use of defense diplomacy, have been instrumental in supporting the enhancement of Armenia’s security architecture. While France’s defense diplomacy, for example, has been more about robust hard power support, it has, at the same time, coordinated and worked with the U.S. on important soft power components of defense diplomacy: training of special forces, transfer of military science and education, officer exchange program, and the presence of military advisors within Armenia’s Ministry of Defense. At the institutional and multilateral level, the European Union has supplemented the Euro-Atlantic framework by deploying the EU Civilian Observation Mission along the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, while also, for the first time, providing military assistance to Armenia through the European Peace Facility. 

Finally, when observing the operationalization of American defense diplomacy in Armenia, a set of concrete developments stand out. The U.S., for example, has taken an active role in supporting Armenia’s military reforms, which includes the appointment of a resident advisor as well as bilateral contacts between senior military officials. Robust U.S. involvement in Armenia’s defense sector is further exemplified by support from the Pentagon’s Institute for Security Governance, collaboration between U.S. European Command and Armenia’s Defense Ministry, as well as support through advisory programs, ranging from military-to-military contact activities, transfer of military science and education, and joint military exercises. Further, the U.S. has been playing an important role in supporting Armenia strengthen its cybersecurity capabilities, as well as helping develop its Foreign Intelligence Service (FIS). Washington has also supported Armenia’s security collaboration with various NATO members, not only with France, but as well as Armenia’s military-technical cooperation with Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Czechia, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Germany. 

Conclusion

Collectively, whether one is attempting to understand the policy goals and the implementations of such goals by the United States, or seeking to decipher the broader strategic objectives of America’s engagement with Armenia’s defense sector, or endeavoring to formulate a framework in qualifying current and future activities of the U.S. with respect to Armenia’s security, all roads lead to a singular concept: defense diplomacy. In observing the nine types of activities inherent to defense diplomacy, the U.S. has initiated programs specific to the first four: bilateral contacts between senior military and civilian officials, training of personnel, provisions of expertise, and appointment of personnel within Armenia’s Ministry of Defense. It has also initiated one iteration of the remaining five: bilateral military exercises. In noting these developments, what more can Armenia expect from America’s defense diplomacy? Based on the successful implementation of the existing activities as noted, Armenia can expect the following:

1. Concrete engagement and contacts at various unit levels within the respective militaries;
2. Deployment of special training teams by the United States to address specific needs areas of Armenia’s defense sector;
3. Provisions of military equipment and other forms of military aid, beginning with nonlethal and eventually proceeding to lethal aid;
4. Having undertaken bilateral military exercises, elevating this to multilateral exercises.    
5. Forming a bilateral defense agreement.

As the hierarchy of importance and severity of engagement is evident, the intensification of defense diplomacy is synonymous with the intensification of the types of activities that the U.S. will engage in. To this end, should Armenia continue on its track of defense sector reforms, and should Armenia’s foreign and security reorientation continue its Western pivot, American defense diplomacy will, in the near future, offer the Republic of Armenia the following activities: deployment of special training units, provisions of military equipment (including lethal aid), multilateral military exercises, and eventually, a bilateral defense agreement. 

Examining the Context

Listen to the Examining the Context podcasts here

EVN Security Report