Armenia’s Western Pivot: Pashinyan’s Democratization Gamble and the Challenges Ahead
Dr. Zheer Ahmed
Over the past 18 months, Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan’s government has made a significant break from Russia’s sphere of influence. Instead, the country is striving to deepen its strategic cooperation with the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). In a speech at the Atlantic Council on February 4, 2025, Pashinyan reinforced his commitment to democracy, human rights, and an independent judiciary, viewing these as essential pillars for Armenia’s stability after its defeat in the Second Karabakh War.
Pashinyan also acknowledged that democratization requires peace not only with Azerbaijan but also with Turkey, a long-standing geopolitical adversary. His vision is centered on Armenia achieving a stable and peaceful regional environment, emphasizing that the country cannot be independent, prosperous, or secure without regional peace. However, it seems a challenge to achieve his vision given the lingering tensions in the South Caucasus,
Central to Pashinyan’s democratization blueprint is a peace agreement with Azerbaijan. Despite the current deadlock in negotiations, he highlighted that 15 of 17 articles of the ‘Draft Peace Treaty’ have been finalized, with the remaining sticking points requiring only ‘political will’ to resolve. While both Armenia and Azerbaijan have committed to bilateral talks without external mediation, Pashinyan stressed the importance of international attention and support in fostering a conducive environment for a sustainable peace deal. Pashinyan framed South Caucasus peace as ‘low-hanging fruit’ for the West, hoping to entice Washington and Brussels to play a role in ensuring regional stability. However, it is unclear whether the Trump administration will heed his call with its foreign policy agenda as restructuring of USAID is suggesting a reduced commitment to democratization aid. Therefore, Washington may not be as receptive to Pashinyan’s appeals as he hopes.
Pashinyan’s diplomatic itinerary in Washington reflected this uncertainty. While he secured a meeting with Vice President J.D. Vance at the White House, the Armenian government’s statement on February 7, 2025 provided little detail beyond a photo of the two leaders together. The two-line statement merely mentioned discussions on issues related to Armenia-US bilateral relations, as well as the regional agenda. His only other significant engagement with American policymakers was a meeting with a congressional delegation on Capitol Hill.
Beyond the challenges in Washington, Pashinyan’s peace agenda faces stiff resistance from both domestic political forces and the Armenian diaspora. His vision for normalizing relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey involves moving past historical grievances and focusing on future cooperation has sparked outrage both at home and abroad. One of the most contentious elements of Pashinyan’s plan is his stand on the 1915 Armenian genocide. His willingness to open a new era with a new, empty and clear page has been perceived by many as a betrayal of Armenian history and national identity.
The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), a prominent diaspora organization, issued a scathing statement urging members of the Armenian diaspora to boycott Pashinyan’s public events in Washington. The ARF accused him of normalizing his shameful surrender of Armenian lives and land, democracy and dignity. The statement further lambasted Pashinyan for allegedly downplaying the Armenian Genocide, effectively aligning himself with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s historical denialism. It also condemned him for abandoning ‘Artsakh’ the Armenian term for ‘Karabak’, which remains a deeply emotional issue for Armenians worldwide.
During his Atlantic Council speech, Pashinyan remarked that a key mission of his government is to move Armenians away from what he described as a victim mentality. He argued that Armenia’s success as a democracy and as a state depends on overcoming historical grievances and embracing a forward-looking perspective. However, achieving this transformation will require to overcome deeply entrenched national sentiments and convincing the Armenian people that his approach is in their best interest.
While Pashinyan has sought to position of Armenia as the new pro-democracy country of Eurasia, the road ahead remains fraught with obstacles. His bid to replace Georgia as the Caucasus’ most favoured nation for Western democratization aid comes at a time when Washington’s priorities are shifting. The Trump administration’s reluctance to engage deeply in regional peace efforts and its restructuring of USAID suggests that Armenia cannot rely on the USF as a steadfast partner in its democratic transformation. At the same time, domestic opposition to Pashinyan’s approach continues to grow.
His peace agenda, particularly his willingness to normalize relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan, is deeply unpopular among many Armenians, who still grapple with historical traumas. The backlash from the diaspora underscores the difficulties he faces in unifying Armenian voices for his vision. Pashinyan’s success will be determined by whether he can bridge these divides both internationally and domestically. Without robust Western backing, his government may struggle to realize its democratic aspirations, and without securing broad-based support among Armenians, his peace efforts may remain stalled.
Dr. Zheer Ahmed, Assistant Professor at Center of Excellence for Geopolitics and International Studies, REVA University, Bengaluru.
