Op-ed by Vartan Oskanian, Armenia’s former foreign minister (1998-2008)
The moment Nikol Pashinyan steps down—or is removed from office—Armenia’s strategic and diplomatic position will markedly improve, and the threat of renewed war will diminish. Why? Because Pashinyan is widely seen as a failure. His political capital is exhausted, his credibility undermined, and his leadership has come to symbolize weakness to adversaries and unreliability to allies. Under his watch, Armenia has lost territory, lives, and national pride. A new government, guided by national interests and a clear sense of purpose, can begin to turn the page and reclaim Armenia’s rightful place in the region.
The new government must act swiftly on two fronts. First, it must pause ongoing negotiations with Azerbaijan. It doesn’t have to challenge any agenda items currently on the table, regardless of how dangerous or unacceptable they may be. Instead, on the basis of the principle of reciprocity, Armenia must calmly and firmly insist on the inclusion of its own priorities—chief among them: the release of Armenian hostages, the right of return for the displaced people of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the withdrawal of Azerbaijani forces from sovereign Armenian territory. Let the talks resume. This approach should be principled, measured, and unyielding—resolute, but not provocative.
Second, Armenia must bring clarity to its geopolitical orientation in light of shifting realities on the ground and changes in global power dynamics. Armenia must move beyond reactive diplomacy. Its government must speak with clarity and confidence, stop being paralyzed by fear of war, and refuse to capitulate to externally imposed solutions. National interest must be defined by Armenia—not outsourced to foreign powers with competing agendas.
While the West pursues its own strategic goals in the region—diminishing Russian influence, isolating Iran, securing Azeri energy flows—Armenia must not become a pawn in a larger game. Rather, it should engage with all actors on the basis of mutual interest and respect.
Even during less favorable periods in the 2000s, the policy of complementarity served Armenia well. The current international environment presents an opportune moment to revive this approach: maintaining one strategic anchor while engaging other global powers in a complementary fashion, in order to maximize both security and economic benefits.
Indeed, the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh and the forced displacement of its entire Armenian population in 2023 was not only a national tragedy—it was a wake-up call. This moment demands a bold and unapologetic redefinition of Armenian foreign policy, grounded not in fear or fatalism, but in enduring national interests: sovereignty, territorial integrity, the right of return, and the preservation of identity.
Pursuing national interests does not mean seeking conflict; it means advancing strategic goals with clarity, discipline, and consistency. Among the most urgent priorities is restoring the right of return for the displaced Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh. More than 120,000 people were expelled in what can only be described as an act of ethnic cleansing. This is not a closed chapter; it is a continuing political, diplomatic, legal, and moral crisis. Armenia must lead the international campaign for their return, building on existing support—from the International Court of Justice’s November 2023 ruling, to resolutions in the European and Swiss parliaments, to statements by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs.
Simultaneously, Armenia must take a principled and realistic approach to relations with Turkey. This does not mean sacrificing historical truth. The 1915 genocide is a documented fact, recognized by scholars and governments alike. But normalization cannot be indefinitely paralyzed by history. A post-Pashinyan Armenia must adopt a forward-looking posture: honest, non-revisionist, and free from hate or revenge.
Armenia stands at a crossroads. Under Pashinyan, the path has been one of retreat, resignation, and increasing vulnerability. But this trajectory is not inevitable. With new leadership, restored national purpose, and a confident foreign policy, Armenia can rise again—defending the rights of its people, preserving its identity, and asserting its rightful role in the region and the world.
While Vartan Oskanian offers a forceful critique of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and calls for a change in leadership as a solution to Armenia’s current challenges, his argument misdiagnoses both the root of Armenia’s problems and the remedy. The idea that Armenia’s diplomatic and security fortunes will “markedly improve” the moment Pashinyan steps down is not only overly simplistic – it overlooks structural realities, regional constraints, and the geopolitical transformation that has taken place since the 2020 war.
Removing Pashinyan does not erase the balance of power in the South Caucasus. Azerbaijan’s military superiority, bolstered by Turkish and Israeli support, remains intact. Russia’s declining reliability and overt hostility toward Armenia won’t disappear with new faces in Yerevan. And the West, while more engaged, still calibrates its support within broader strategic interests. In this context, blaming one leader for a situation shaped by decades of neglect, flawed assumptions, and changing global alignments is shortsighted.
Whatever one’s opinion of Pashinyan’s leadership, his government was returned to power in a free and fair election after the 2020 war – an extraordinary act of democratic resilience. Moreover, his foreign policy reflects a sober recalibration, not surrender. Pashinyan is not “outsourcing” Armenia’s national interest but rather redefining it in line with a multipolar reality. He is attempting to escape the dangerous binary of “West vs. Russia” by anchoring Armenia in a more diverse set of partnerships – France, India, the EU, and yes, even cautiously, the U.S. This is not weakness – it’s realism. And for a small state surrounded by autocratic powers, realism is survival.
The notion that a new government will command greater respect from adversaries is speculative at best and misleading at worst. Armenia’s adversaries – Aliyev, Erdogan, and increasingly, Putin – do not distinguish between Armenian governments. Their goals are strategic and territorial, not personal. The only “national purpose” they respect is capability, deterrence, and diplomatic coherence – not fiery rhetoric or abrupt shifts in leadership. Furthermore, calling for a pause in negotiations, as Oskanian suggests, risks derailing fragile progress and gives Azerbaijan more room to escalate. Reciprocity, return of displaced people, and border security must indeed be pursued – but not from a posture of reset and rupture. Continuity, institutional strength, and measured diplomacy are more powerful than the illusion of a clean slate.
Oskanian’s nostalgia for the policy of “complementarity” in the 2000s ignores how dramatically the regional architecture has changed. The Russia of 2024 is not a neutral anchor – it is an unreliable actor that has failed to fulfill CSTO obligations and openly criticized Armenia’s outreach to the West. The so-called “complementary” strategy of the past often meant dependence masked as balance. Today, Armenia needs strategic autonomy, not a return to a broken framework.
Armenia’s foreign policy under Pashinyan has indeed shifted – but not toward capitulation. Rather, it reflects the realization that Armenia cannot outgun its adversaries, but it can outmaneuver them with smart diplomacy, targeted partnerships, economic diversification, and rule-of-law reforms that attract long-term allies. The real game-changer is not who leads Armenia, but whether Armenia builds enough institutional and diplomatic credibility to survive and thrive without being anyone’s pawn.
Armenia does not need new rhetoric or new leadership for the sake of political theater. It needs stability, reform, and a foreign policy grounded in deterrence, diplomacy, and resilience. The calls to remove Pashinyan may resonate emotionally with a segment of the public, but they offer no viable alternative strategy. Armenia is not failing because of one man – it is struggling because of a hostile region, shrinking Russian reliability, and decades of policy inertia. The answer lies in deep structural reform, not in short-term regime change. What’s needed now is not a new savior, but strategic continuity and national unity in the face of external threats and internal fragmentation.