Ex-FM: Armenia`s participation in creation of future security  architecture is no longer diplomatic choice, but strategic necessity

ArmInfo. Armenia's participation in the creation of the future security architecture is no longer a diplomatic choice, but a strategic necessity. This is stated in an article by former Armenian Foreign Minister and founding member of the Pan-Armenian Council of Diplomats, Ara Ayvazyan.

He noted that there are periods in the history of states when  challenges do not arise in isolation, but form a unified crisis  environment. In such moments, he argues, it is not enough to respond  to individual threats; it is necessary to rethink the country's place  in a changing world, define national interests, and develop a  long-term development strategy. Ayvazyan believes that Armenia finds  itself in precisely such a situation today. "Domestic political  polarization, the changing regional balance of power, and the  profound transformation of the international order are no longer  independent processes. They mutually reinforce each other and  determine the state's ability to maintain stability and agency,"  explained the former Armenian Foreign Minister.

According to him, the country currently faces three interrelated  strategic crises: domestic stability, regional security, and global  order. The domestic crisis in Armenia, as the founding member of the  Pan-Armenian Council of Diplomats noted, has not yet escalated into  open civil confrontation, but the level of political polarization  poses serious risks to the state's stability. In this regard, he  recalled that a democratic society presupposes competition between  different points of view. According to him, the problem arises when  minimal consensus on issues beyond the current political  struggle-security, foreign policy priorities, the development of  state institutions, and the future of the state-disappears. "The  current stage is characterized not only by political confrontation.  Following the fundamental changes in regional reality that have  occurred in recent years, our society lacks a unified vision for the  country's long-term development strategy. If political competition  turns into a struggle to eliminate the opponent, the state gradually  loses the ability to make strategic decisions. Amid a deteriorating  socioeconomic situation, declining trust in state institutions, and  growing public discontent, the internal crisis could deepen, posing a  threat to social stability," Ayvazyan believes.

In this regard, he urged considering internal consolidation as a key  component of national security. Thus, according to him, Armenia needs  to restore a minimum national consensus on fundamental issues:   preserving independence, ensuring security, strengthening state  institutions, and creating conditions for long-term development.  Because, as the former Foreign Minister noted, without internal  stability, it is impossible to formulate an effective foreign  strategy.

Speaking about the crisis of the regional order, the diplomat stated  that the South Caucasus is not experiencing another stage of  political change, but a transitional period for the formation of a  new regional order. According to Ayvazyan, not only the balance of  military and political forces is changing, but also the very  principles of organizing regional security. "While until recently the  focus was on resolving individual conflicts, today a new system of  regional relations is emerging that will determine the fate of the  South Caucasus for decades to come," the former minister believes.

Thus, according to him, Azerbaijan is seeking to consolidate the  results of recent years, transforming its military advantage into  long-term political influence and a new regional reality. That is, as  the founding member of the Pan-Armenian Council of Diplomats  explained, it is no longer so much a question of ending one conflict,  but rather of forming a new regional hierarchy. "For Turkey, these  processes are opening up exceptional opportunities to implement the  centuries-old strategy of Great Turan by asserting its influence in  the South Caucasus. At the same time, the ongoing changes are  affecting the interests of other key players in the region. For  Russia, the South Caucasus continues to be part of a strategic  security space, where changing regional balances directly impact its  position in the broader Eurasian context. For Iran, maintaining  strategic stability along its northern borders and preventing the  formation of a regional configuration that could upset the existing  balance of interests is of fundamental importance," Ayvazyan noted.  Thus, according to him, this is no longer just a bilateral  Armenian-Azerbaijani standoff, but the formation of a new regional  system in which the interests of all major participants are  intertwined. This is precisely why, as the former minister noted, the  stability of the future order cannot be ensured solely by the  advantage of one side or the logic of military-political dominance.

"The main question for the future of the South Caucasus is not only  which state will wield greater influence, but also the principles on  which the new regional order will be built. Will it be based solely  on competition for dominance or on institutional mechanisms that  ensure predictability, mutual security, and consideration of the  legitimate interests of all states in the region," Ayvazyan  explained.

Armenia's task in this situation, he said, is not only to protect its  own sovereignty and national interests, but also to become an active  participant in the process of shaping the rules of future regional  interaction, so as not to be dictated to.

"That's why Armenia's participation in the creation of the future  security architecture is no longer a diplomatic choice, but a  strategic necessity. At the same time, the logic of these processes  cannot be understood by viewing the South Caucasus solely as an  independent region. The order emerging here is part of a larger  transformation of the international system, the center of which is  increasingly shifting to Eurasia," explained the founding member of  the Pan-Armenian Council of Diplomats.

Speaking about the global crisis, he noted that events in the South  Caucasus should be viewed in a broader Eurasian context. Because, as  Ayvazyan explained, the formation of a new world order is gradually  turning the region into a key hub of rivalry between major centers of  power. Thus, according to him, in the new situation, the South  Caucasus ceases to be a periphery of global politics and becomes one  of the main epicenters of the emerging geopolitical confrontation.

"The processes unfolding in the South Caucasus are becoming part of a  broader global rivalry, where the interests of Russia, Turkey, Iran,  the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, China,  India, the Persian Gulf states, and Israel intersect. However, the  transformation of the region into a platform for great power rivalry  does not mean that the states located here will inevitably become  passive observers and objects. The ability of small states to remain  independent actors in international relations is determined not only  by external circumstances but also by the quality of their own  strategies," Ayvazyan believes.

The former minister believes that the response to the three strategic  crises cannot be limited to isolated measures. As Ayvazyan noted,  internal stability, regional security, and international agency are  interconnected elements of a unified state strategy. The former  minister believes that national consolidation should form the  foundation of such a strategy. He believes that it is on this  foundation that national interests can be clearly articulated, as in  modern conditions, they are not limited to the formal preservation of  state sovereignty. National interests, as Ayvazyan explained, include  the state's ability to ensure the security of its citizens, protect  national identity, develop human capital, maintain demographic  stability, and maintain political agency, which must be expressed  through strengthening strategic autonomy.

He identified the creation of a strategic planning system with  permanent mechanisms for analyzing, forecasting, and assessing  long-term development scenarios as the next link in this logic.

According to him, the history of international relations has  repeatedly shown that periods of global order transition have become  the most severe trials for medium and small states. However, it was  precisely during such periods, Ayvazyan believes, that the quality of  state institutions, strategic thinking, and society's capacity for  consolidation determined whether they would retain their agency or  become the objects of decisions made by others.