Had Nagorno-Karabakh not been perceived as the strategic underbelly of Russia and a geopolitical hotspot capable of igniting the entire Caucasus, American interest in Armenia and its supposed economic prosperity would not have been visible to the naked eye. However, in this context, Armenia is among the primary circles of Washington’s interest, as clearly evidenced by the content of a 2018 U.S. government document titled “Integrated Strategy for Armenia.” It is worth noting that the preparation of this document coincides with the rise to power of Nikol Pashinyan, a pro-Western politician who, during his tenure, achieved something no Armenian convert had done for centuries—betray his own people.
STRANGE KIND OF HELP
What is the Role of the U.S. in Armenia, and How Do They Convince Armenians that Their Greatest Enemy is Not Azerbaijan, but “That Terrible” Russia? From the very beginning, the 2018 “Integrated Strategy for Armenia” document highlights how the Armenian government is praised for its progress in rule of law, human rights, and democracy. These factors are framed as prerequisites for advancing U.S. political and strategic interests in the Caucasus.
The document reveals that the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan uses diplomatic activities, development aid, military assistance, public diplomacy, and rule-of-law programs to help Armenia normalize relations with its neighbors, contribute to U.S. security goals, liberalize and open its markets to American trade, improve the country’s energy security, counter Russian disinformation, and strengthen institutions promoting human rights and the rule of law.
NATO’S MILITARY TRAINING GROUND
Armenia’s geography—bordering Iran, Turkey, and Georgia, and being close to Russia and Syria—has made it a critical stake in major geopolitical games. Currently, Armenia is expected to curb Russian influence, become a platform for promoting Western values, and ultimately serve as NATO’s military training ground for future operations in the region.
Reducing energy and military dependency on Russia is one of the goals highlighted in the document. It mentions that the U.S. has already invested millions toward this objective. Moreover, Armenia’s participation as the only member of the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) to contribute troops to NATO operations in Afghanistan is seen as an advantage in ensuring regional stability.
A PROGRESSIVE LAW?
Of course, the path to such a document required serious and long-term efforts by the U.S. and civilian agents who managed to seize political space for civil society in Armenia, a country that had formally joined the Eurasian Economic Union, while denying funding from foreign sources to unfavorable media outlets and candidates. In other words, the U.S. did not allow Armenia to preserve its sovereignty, not only under the Russian model but not even under the American one, instead assigning it the fate of a colonial state where everything unimaginable in their own country becomes so possible.
“It is precisely this openness of political space for civil society, media, and the opposition that enabled the Armenian people to successfully organize, remain united, and ultimately peacefully remove a government they deemed to have stayed in power through illegal and undemocratic methods. Civil society in Armenia remains active, although it is still not self-sustainable. A progressive and Western-oriented law on public organizations was adopted in 2017, providing NGOs with greater opportunities for sustainability. Our aid programs, which support energy security, democratic governance, and independent media, aim to reduce Russian leverage, strengthen Armenia’s ability to make sovereign decisions, and enhance sustainable elements of civil society.”
A SURREPTITIOUS GAME
The section “Countering Russian Influence: Supporting Armenian Sovereignty and Resilience” makes no attempt to disguise its intentions. The authors explicitly state their aim to completely eliminate Russian influence to expand their own. Armenia’s geostrategic position and its proximity to Russia and Iran make it exceptionally important for U.S. interests.
Additionally, interest is sparked by the fact that Iran withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which caused further tensions with the West, leading to the country being labeled a destabilizing factor in relation to Armenia. The authors overlook that Iran and Armenia have never been at war or engaged in political conflicts. On the contrary, regarding Nagorno-Karabakh, Iran maintained a completely neutral stance, unlike the U.S., which, through Turkey, armed Azerbaijan while politically supporting Armenians, simultaneously accusing Russia of its own actions. The U.S.’s double game did not ease but deepened hostilities, ultimately leading, in 2023, to tens of thousands of Armenians being forced to leave Nagorno-Karabakh.
WHO WAS ARMING WHOM?
The United States further claims that Nagorno-Karabakh is Armenia’s greatest obstacle to normalizing the situation and achieving economic prosperity, blaming Russia alone for its status and baselessly asserting that Russia supports both sides simultaneously. The truth is that the U.S. has politically and security-wise “covered” Armenia while supplying Azerbaijan with weapons. From the American perspective, one could conclude that Russia, whose security forces have been guarding the borders for years, armed Azerbaijan and knowingly, without any purpose, sacrificed its own military. Nonsense.
While openly accusing Russia of “sitting on two chairs,” the Americans propose taking its place in the form of a security and peacekeeping mission. Isn’t the same pattern already seen in Kosovo and Metohija during the pro-European regime when the Russians withdrew, the international community assumed the role of judges, and KFOR units “secured peace” in a way that allowed Kosovo Albanians everything, even killings, while the number of Serbs rapidly decreased?
Although the document later admits that Armenia’s geographic position prevents it from making a definitive choice between the U.S. and Russia, the United States does not abandon its long-term plans. It notes that if relations with Azerbaijan are normalized, it could view Azerbaijan as an economic partner, particularly emphasizing Turkey, which the U.S. can always rely on as an ally.
A setup with only one winner: America.
Framework of Strategic Mission Goals:
Mission Goal 1: Promoting American Values and Countering Russian Influence
This process involves a series of steps the U.S. plans to take in Armenia, all aimed at distancing Armenia from Russian influence while simultaneously expanding American influence, as stated explicitly in the document:
“Through continuous U.S. military engagement, the Armenian government advances in defense reform, strengthens its Western orientation, increases its contribution to regional and global security, and improves preparedness for emergencies, positively impacting the protection of both American and Armenian citizens and reducing Armenia’s military dependence on Russia.”
It is noteworthy that Russia has not interfered in Armenia’s internal or foreign policies, whereas the intent of the United States is to manage the country’s politics through programs and the expansion of its influence. Simply put, this program, publicly published, blatantly reveals its shameless idea of complete colonization of Armenia and the imposition of American culture at the expense of Armenian culture. For instance, a section within the strategic goals is titled “Understanding American Values, Culture, and the English Language”, which states:
“Armenians who understand and value American culture and democracy resist malign Russian influence and prefer to do business with American companies. Many of the over 4,000 alumni of U.S. government-funded exchange programs advocate for American values in their workplaces, communities, and families. Learning English represents a vital tool for advancing U.S. policies and countering negative Russian narratives in Armenia. Armenians with better knowledge of English have greater access to Western narratives and values, as well as broader access to sources of information and perspectives outside of Russia. Additionally, better English proficiency creates new educational opportunities for young Armenians, increases their employability and ability to drive change, and prevents their migration to Russia, where they might be exposed to Kremlin propaganda, which they could then share with families and friends in Armenia.”
In the subsequent mission goal, pretentiously titled “Promoting and Protecting U.S. Interests Abroad”, the text discusses how the ultimate reason for expanding American influence and suppressing an imaginary Russian one is, in fact, the suppression of traditional Armenian values, allegedly to protect U.S. citizens returning to Armenia and the long-term investments of this colonial empire.
While the document claims the goal is to make Armenia a free, transparent, and orderly society that can economically cooperate more easily with the U.S. and the collective West under such conditions, it conditions Armenia to leave the Eurasian Economic Union, where it already has developed trade relations with Russia and China. These are, due to Armenia’s geographic location, its only viable trading partners.
The height of the document’s hypocrisy lies in the final section, which addresses Armenia’s domestic and especially foreign policies. Again, the goal is to “liberate” Armenia from Russian influence and impose controlled sovereignty by the U.S., allowing the country to economically and industrially prosper while ensuring that the United States achieves all its declared interests—interests that are no longer even hidden.
The document claims that Russia deliberately keeps the situation with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh frozen and blames it for the closed border with Turkey, which allegedly hinders trade and investments (some imaginary American ones). This narrative posits that Russian oligarchs control imports and exports, profiting at the expense of an entire nation’s fate:
“The frozen conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and the subsequent closure of the border with Turkey hinder trade and investments, allowing pro-Russian oligarchs to control imports and exports, fostering corruption, and causing excessive public spending on defense and security instead of human capital. The mission will invest in key government officials, current and future public opinion leaders, journalists, and civil society representatives who, together with their colleagues in Turkey and Azerbaijan, can work on resolving regional conflicts. This will create long-term investment opportunities for American companies.”
Here, the U.S. demonstrates how critical it is for Armenia to open up to its military and strategic partner Turkey, which, it should be reminded, has continuously armed Armenians and actively supported them during conflicts. The document openly mentions future cooperation with civil sector colleagues in Azerbaijan, supporting the thesis that the entire conflict was, in fact, facilitated through this so-called peacekeeper, using the much-celebrated civil sector of foreign intelligence services.
From this perspective, six years after the rise of Nikol Pashinyan’s pro-Western party and the strengthening of the civil sector, Armenia finds itself in an unenviable situation. Instead of the promised economic prosperity and stability, the country is sinking deeper into dependence on the West, while Nagorno-Karabakh, despite the presence of Russian peacekeepers, is now almost entirely under Azerbaijani control.
The summary would be: by distancing itself from Russia, Armenia voluntarily agrees to surrender its sovereignty and territorial integrity—a reality the Armenian government is reluctant to acknowledge.
