Nikol Pashinyan Saved Armenia from the Brink

In this article, we will examine the historical significance of the political course pursued by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. But first, let us briefly look back at a thousand years of history.

Armenian Relations during the Seljuk Period (11th–13th Centuries)

When the Seljuks entered Anatolia—especially after the Battle of Manzikert in 1071—some Armenian communities, who had long suffered under heavy Byzantine rule, regarded the Turks as liberators. Many sympathized with the Seljuks in opposition to Byzantium, while others either offered assistance or remained neutral.

Over time, however, the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia allied itself with the Crusader armies during the Crusades. It cooperated with the Crusaders against the Seljuks and the emerging Turkish principalities in Anatolia.

During the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century, sections of the Armenian leadership also reached an understanding with the Mongols and supported them against the Seljuk state. On each occasion, they pursued a strategy of aligning themselves with the strongest power of the day. In the long run, however, this strategy failed to preserve their independent political existence, and the region ultimately came under Turkish rule.

The Ottoman Period (19th and Early 20th Centuries)

For centuries, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were known as the Millet-i Sadıka—the "Loyal Nation." Beginning in the nineteenth century, however, the rise of nationalism and the encouragement of the Great Powers led segments of the Armenian population toward rebellion.

The Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878: Many Armenians served as guides, intelligence sources, and supporters for the Russian army. During the Russian occupation, violent attacks were carried out against Muslim Turkish communities. Following the war, the Treaty of Berlin transformed the "Armenian Question" into an international issue under the guise of reforms.

The 1890s and Beyond: Revolutionary organizations such as the Hunchaks and the Dashnaks, cooperating with powers including Russia, Britain, and France, pursued the goal of establishing an independent Armenia. They organized acts of political violence and uprisings in places such as Sasun and Zeytun.

The First World War (1914–1918): As the Russian army advanced into eastern Anatolia, Armenian armed groups and volunteer units cooperated directly with Russian forces. They launched uprisings behind Ottoman lines, carried out acts of sabotage, and attacked Muslim villages. The Van uprising was among the most notable events of this period. These activities aimed to weaken the Ottoman rear during wartime.

In other words, throughout different historical periods, Armenians repeatedly adopted a strategy of supporting whichever external power sought to dominate the region. Although this sometimes produced short-term advantages, they often ended up sharing the fate of the defeated side, paying a heavy price through displacement and suffering. This recurring pattern illustrates, from this perspective, the tragic consequences of becoming a pawn of imperial powers while pursuing unrealistic political ambitions. History repeatedly demonstrates the difficulties faced by smaller nations that fail to establish lasting peace with their powerful neighbors. The Armenian experience is presented here as one such example.

Great Powers Exploit Smaller States

Major powers establish puppet states or place weaker countries under their influence in pursuit of their own strategic interests. Countries such as Greece, Armenia, the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus, and Israel are presented as examples of this pattern. One could also add certain Gulf states to the list. Similar artificially constructed states exist in other parts of the world. Although they appear independent, their independence is largely illusory. They lack the demographic strength, military capacity, economic resilience, and historical experience necessary for genuine strategic autonomy.

Armenia's Post-Soviet Obsession

After gaining independence following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Armenia became trapped in what may be described as one of the most consequential misconceptions in its modern history. Caught between Russia's sphere of influence, the strategic calculations of the United States, France, Germany, Britain, and other Western powers, and the relentless pressure of an uncompromising Armenian diaspora, this small Caucasian state gradually became a geopolitical pawn.

For years, successive Armenian governments organized international campaigns portraying Turkey as a perpetrator of genocide while fueling hostility toward neighboring countries. Rather than pursuing normalization with Turkey after independence, they continuously revived historical disputes through the influence of diaspora lobbying. Parliamentary resolutions recognizing the Armenian genocide were promoted across Western capitals in an effort to isolate Turkey diplomatically.

This strategy deliberately deepened hostility between two neighboring peoples and ensured that the conflict remained unresolved. According to this perspective, the objective was never genuine reconciliation. Instead, instability in the region served broader geopolitical purposes: preserving Russia's influence in the South Caucasus, allowing Western powers to maintain leverage over regional energy corridors, and constraining Turkey's regional influence. Armenia ultimately became a pawn in this larger geopolitical contest.

The Minsk Process: A Mechanism for Freezing, Not Solving the Conflict

The OSCE Minsk Group, co-chaired by Russia, the United States, and France, spent years acting as a mediator, yet its efforts ultimately proved to be a complete failure. While it kept the parties at the negotiating table, it failed to produce any meaningful progress. On the contrary, it preserved the status quo by effectively allowing Armenia to maintain control over Azerbaijan's occupied territories.

Rather than bringing about a territorial settlement, facilitating the return of displaced persons, or laying the foundations for lasting peace, the Minsk Process institutionalized deadlock. It became a mechanism for buying time and preserving Armenia's dependence on Russia. Eventually, the process collapsed in practice because it had failed to deliver a realistic or sustainable solution.

Deadlock Drove Armenia into Decline

During these years, Armenia's economy deteriorated, and its people became increasingly impoverished. The country's population shrank dramatically. Following independence, an estimated 700,000 to 1.3 million Armenians left the country, emigrating primarily to Russia and Western countries. Those who remained faced persistent poverty, while unemployment and poverty rates remained above 30 percent for many years.

The economy survived largely through remittances sent by Armenians living abroad, yet the country gradually lost the ability to sustain itself. Meanwhile, members of the diaspora, many of whom enjoyed comfortable lives overseas, continued encouraging governments in Yerevan to pursue confrontational policies. Driven by dreams of a "Greater Armenia," they encouraged younger generations to sacrifice themselves while obstructing realistic political solutions.

Geography is destiny. Armenia resembles a small island surrounded by a sea of Turkic states. Without improving relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan, reopening its borders, and integrating economically with the region, its long-term prosperity is difficult to imagine. Closed borders, blocked trade routes, and regional isolation have impoverished Armenia, driven away its youth, and darkened its future. The responsibility of a realistic leader is to recognize these geographical realities and guide the country out of this impasse.

Pashinyan's Bold Move

True leaders are those who are willing to take risks.

When Nikol Pashinyan inherited this heavy political legacy, he made a series of radical decisions. Regarding the Karabakh conflict, he chose to confront realities rather than perpetuate long-standing narratives. By declaring that "Karabakh is not Armenia," he acknowledged that claims over Azerbaijani territory were unsustainable. He sought to distance his people from the inflated ambitions that had shaped Armenian politics for decades.

During the developments of 2020 and 2023, rather than resisting Azerbaijan's military campaign, he took what are described here as pragmatic steps. He facilitated developments such as the withdrawal from the occupied territories and the normalization process.

These decisions were anything but easy. At home, he faced fierce opposition from political rivals. Abroad, he came under intense pressure from the Armenian diaspora and Russia. Yet despite the possibility of being branded a traitor by many within his own nation, Pashinyan continued on this path. According to this perspective, these decisions spared Armenia from an even greater disaster and prevented the country from descending into a far deeper crisis.

In Conclusion

Imperial powers exploited Armenia in pursuit of their own strategic interests. Russia used its military presence to maintain influence, while Western countries employed the rhetoric of democracy and genocide recognition to shape Yerevan's policies. France and Germany exerted pressure through lobbying networks, while the United States encouraged Armenia as part of its broader strategic balancing efforts.

Yet none of these forms of support brought prosperity to Armenia. They did not improve the lives of ordinary Armenians or lift them out of poverty. Instead, they prolonged confrontation and sustained conflict.

Pashinyan sought to break this cycle.

He introduced what he called the vision of a "Real Armenia"—a vision grounded not in romantic nationalism but in political realism. Rather than pursuing unattainable dreams, he presented the prospect of an Armenia living in peace with its neighbors.

The Armenian people, in turn, understood this message. Their repeated support for Pashinyan at the ballot box represented what is described here as a political awakening. They rejected the adventurous policies promoted by the diaspora and the old political elite, choosing instead the path of peace and normalization.

From this perspective, this marks one of the major turning points in Armenian history. Rather than allowing their country's future to be shaped by great-power rivalry and geopolitical manipulation, many Armenians began seeking prosperity through regional cooperation and integration.

Pashinyan Took Risky but Courageous Steps

Pashinyan's decisions were risky, but they were necessary.

His determination to improve relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan, reopen borders, and promote economic cooperation offers what is presented here as Armenia's path to recovery.

Stepping back from the edge of the abyss is never easy. Yet realistic leadership, public support, and the geographical realities of the region provide grounds for hope.

If Armenia continues along this course, it may overcome poverty, emigration, and isolation. Otherwise, it risks once again becoming a victim of the same geopolitical games that have shaped so much of its modern history.

History tends to reward those who make courageous yet rational decisions. If Pashinyan succeeds in completing this transformation, he may ultimately be remembered as the leader who saved Armenia.

Regional peace would benefit not only the two countries directly involved but the entire South Caucasus. Turkey and Azerbaijan have consistently expressed their desire for peaceful and prosperous relations with their neighbors. The next step, according to this perspective, depends on Yerevan's willingness to respond to that call with sincerity.

Alper Tan

June 9, 2026

Translated by: Günel Agha