From Survival to Statehood: Reflections on a Sovereign Armenia

Listen to the AI generated audio article. 

I write these reflections not as a citizen of the Republic of Armenia, nor as a participant in its domestic political debates. I write as a Canadian citizen of Armenian heritage who has consciously chosen to remain connected to the Armenian nation and who remains deeply concerned about its future.

These thoughts are offered with humility. Those who live in Armenia bear the consequences of political decisions in ways that those of us in the diaspora do not. My intention is not to prescribe policies or advocate for any political party or geopolitical alignment. Rather, I hope to contribute to a broader conversation about sovereignty and the lessons that Armenia’s recent history may offer.

One idea has become increasingly difficult to ignore: every state ultimately acts according to its own interests. Alliances are important, friendships between nations matter, and international cooperation remains indispensable. Yet history consistently demonstrates that no country permanently subordinates its own security or strategic priorities to those of another. When interests converge, partnerships flourish. When they diverge, policies change.

Recognizing this reality is not an expression of cynicism. It is one of the enduring principles of international relations and responsible statecraft.

For centuries, the Armenian people demonstrated remarkable resilience. Despite conquest, displacement, and foreign rule, they preserved their language, faith, culture and national identity. That achievement deserves admiration, but it also highlights an important distinction: the qualities that enable a nation to survive are not always the same as those required to govern an independent state.

Modern Armenia inherited not only the opportunity of independence in 1991 but also the difficult task of rebuilding institutions, strategic thinking, and a political culture suited to sovereign statehood. Much of Armenian history unfolded under the authority or influence of larger empires, including Persian, Ottoman and Russian powers. While periods of Armenian independence certainly existed, centuries without uninterrupted statehood inevitably shaped national habits and expectations.

Perhaps one of the defining challenges of the Republic of Armenia is the transition from a people focused primarily on survival to a state capable of exercising confident and independent judgment in an increasingly complex world.

Since regaining independence, Armenia understandably relied heavily on Russia for its security. Closed borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan, the unresolved conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, limited military resources, and a difficult regional environment all contributed to this strategic choice. Membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the presence of Russia’s military base in Gyumri, and extensive Russian involvement in Armenia’s energy and transportation infrastructure reflected what was widely understood to be a long-term strategic partnership.

For many years, this arrangement appeared both logical and practical.

The difficult questions emerged only during moments of crisis.

The wars over Nagorno-Karabakh, particularly the events of 2020 and 2023, profoundly altered Armenian perceptions of security. Following the 2020 ceasefire, Russian peacekeepers assumed responsibility for maintaining stability in the region. But the decisive rupture in Armenia’s assumptions about its security arrangements came in September 2022, when Azerbaijan attacked the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia. Armenia invoked the CSTO’s collective-security mechanism, but the organization did not provide the military response Armenia had sought. The fighting left more than 200 Armenians dead and resulted in Azerbaijani forces occupying Armenian territory. A year later, during the prolonged blockade of the Lachin Corridor and the subsequent Azerbaijani military operation in September 2023, more than 100,000 Armenians were displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh, ending centuries of continuous indigenous Armenian presence there

The legal characterization of those events continues to be debated internationally. What is beyond dispute, however, is the humanitarian reality that an entire Armenian community was uprooted from its ancestral homeland.

For many Armenians, these events represented more than a military defeat. They challenged deeply held assumptions about the reliability of external security guarantees.

This experience does not necessarily suggest that Armenia should abandon one partner in favor of another. Rather, it illustrates a broader lesson that history has repeatedly taught small states: dependence on any single external power inevitably carries risks. Genuine sovereignty is strengthened not by replacing one patron with another but by expanding a nation’s own capacity for independent decision-making.

Recent years appear to reflect an effort by Armenia to broaden its diplomatic and strategic relationships. Cooperation with the European Union, the United States, France, India, and other partners has expanded alongside continued engagement with Russia, which remains an important economic and regional actor.

Viewed in this light, diversification is not simply a matter of geopolitics or ideology. It is an effort to create greater flexibility and resilience in a world where international alignments are increasingly fluid.

A country with multiple economic partners, diverse sources of investment and energy, varied security relationships, and strong domestic institutions is generally better positioned to protect its own interests than one whose future depends primarily upon a single external actor.

Such an approach need not be interpreted as hostility toward any particular country. Rather, it reflects the practical recognition that enduring sovereignty rests upon preserving options rather than narrowing them.

Armenia’s geography reinforces this reality.

Its location in the South Caucasus places it at the intersection of competing regional and global interests. Turkey remains both a neighboring state and a country with whom historical memory continues to shape relations. Azerbaijan remains Armenia’s immediate neighbor and an essential participant in any lasting regional peace, despite the profound difficulties that continue to exist. Iran, Georgia, Russia, the European Union, the United States, India, and increasingly China all possess interests in the region.

Navigating these relationships requires patience, consistency, and strategic judgment.

For a small state situated among larger powers, foreign policy often becomes an exercise in careful balance rather than permanent alignment. The challenge is not choosing between East and West but preserving sufficient independence to cooperate with many while becoming overly dependent on none.

The international environment further reinforces this point. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated that conventional military conflict remains a central feature of global politics. Ongoing instability across the Middle East, from Israel and Palestine to Lebanon, Iran and the Gulf, illustrates how regional crises can quickly expand beyond their immediate borders. Elsewhere, fragile states continue to experience the consequences of great-power competition.

Armenia exists within this broader international system rather than outside it.

Historical experience also helps explain why security occupies such a central place in Armenian public consciousness. The Hamidian Massacres, the Armenian Genocide, repeated episodes of displacement, decades of regional conflict, and the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh have left enduring psychological and political legacies.

Concerns about national survival, demographic decline, economic vulnerability, sovereignty, and abandonment by allies are therefore rooted in lived historical experience rather than abstract anxiety.

At the same time, history may offer something beyond fear.

Memory can become a source of strategic wisdom rather than permanent trauma. Remembering past tragedies is essential, not because societies should remain imprisoned by them, but because historical understanding can encourage stronger institutions, more thoughtful diplomacy, and greater national resilience.

Ultimately, every discussion of security returns to a more fundamental question: what kind of Armenia should sovereignty serve?

Military capability, diplomacy, and international partnerships are all means rather than ends. Their ultimate purpose is to create conditions in which citizens can imagine building meaningful lives within their own country.

A successful Armenia is not measured solely by territorial security but also by whether young people believe they can build careers, raise families, establish businesses, participate in democratic institutions, and pursue fulfilling lives at home.

Economic opportunity, transparent governance, educational excellence, innovation, and public confidence are themselves forms of national security.

This conversation naturally extends to the Armenian diaspora.

Today, most Armenians live outside the Republic of Armenia. Across the world, Armenian communities include entrepreneurs, scientists, educators, engineers, artists, physicians, business leaders, and public servants whose experience represents an extraordinary national resource.

Yet the long-term strength of Armenia cannot depend upon the diaspora alone. Financial assistance remains valuable, but the relationship should increasingly be understood as a partnership based upon investment, knowledge transfer, institutional cooperation, education, technological innovation, and the exchange of ideas.

Perhaps even more importantly, Armenia itself must continue developing into a country where its own citizens choose to remain, not because they lack alternatives, but because they believe their future can flourish there.

That aspiration may ultimately represent the deepest expression of sovereignty.

The future of Armenia will not be determined exclusively in Moscow, Washington, Brussels, Ankara, Tehran, or any other foreign capital. External actors will continue to pursue their own interests, as states always do. The more enduring question is how Armenia defines and advances its own.

The central issue, therefore, is not whether Armenia belongs to the East or the West. It is whether Armenia continues strengthening its ability to belong, first and foremost, to itself.

If future generations of Armenians, both within the Republic and throughout the diaspora, can confidently say that Armenia is a country worth investing in, worth defending, and worth building a future in, then the long transition from survival to sovereign statehood will have achieved one of its most meaningful successes. 

K.M. Greg Sarkissian is a Co-founder and President of the Zoryan Institute.The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not represent the official position of the Zoryan Institute. 

Also see