Guided by grievance: how diaspora narratives undermine Armenia’s future

In recent months, Armenia’s shifting foreign and security policy has once again exposed deep divisions within its political and social fabric. As Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government pursues new directions in diplomacy and defense, seeking balance between East and West, the reactions from traditional power circles and diaspora groups have been anything but uniform.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the fierce criticism emerging from the diaspora regarding Armenia’s latest cooperation with the United States under the so-called Crossroads of Peace initiative. Framed by its opponents as a “Trojan partnership” and a threat to sovereignty, this rhetoric reflects not a realistic security concern but a broader struggle over identity, power, and control of Armenia’s political narrative.

The recent "white paper" from the Armenian Weekly is a clear example of politically motivated fearmongering. The narrative, disguised as a defense of sovereignty, misrepresents the purpose of the Crossroads of Peace initiative and deliberately overlooks Armenia's own strategic failures and choices regarding geopolitical dependency.

Armenia’s latest cooperation with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) underlines a familiar pattern: Yerevan repeatedly mistakes symbolic foreign attention for strategic importance. The framework, far from being a Western plot, is a limited technical project aimed at assessing and modernizing border management — something Armenia has long lacked capacity in due to systemic mismanagement and overreliance on outdated Soviet structures.

Labeling such cooperation as a “surrender of sovereignty” betrays a deeper insecurity within Armenian policymaking circles. Decades of dependence on Russia’s security umbrella have left the Armenian state incapable of sustaining independent defense capabilities, and now, when Western engagement comes with transparency requirements, nationalist circles interpret it as espionage. The contradiction is glaring: a country that has hosted Russian border troops for over 30 years suddenly finds U.S. technical experts a threat to its autonomy.

Diaspora's appeal for “strategic neutrality” conveniently ignores the reality that Armenia long abandoned neutrality when it became a member of the CSTO and hosted a Russian military base in Gyumri. The paper’s call to “reorient defense policy” is a rhetorical maneuver to justify Yerevan’s gradual detachment from Moscow while scapegoating the West for Armenia’s internal political fragility.

The U.S. mission’s stated purpose, to conduct a capability gap analysis, is a standard practice within international cooperation frameworks. Armenia’s own request for such assistance reflects an acknowledgment of governance and border control weaknesses. If sovereignty were genuinely the issue, such discussions would have begun when Russian soldiers were manning Armenia’s borders with Türkiye and Iran.

Perhaps the most revealing element of the “white paper” is its historical revisionism. The authors selectively cite events from the early 20th century to frame the West as an eternal betrayer of Armenia, while conveniently erasing the catastrophic results of Yerevan’s own strategic miscalculations, from its militarized policies in Garabagh to its diplomatic isolation in recent years.

This instrumental use of history, combined with alarmist language about “occupation” and “foreign control,” aims to evoke existential fear rather than promote realistic policy debate. Ironically, it is precisely this mindset — framing every external actor as an enemy — that has confined Armenia to a cycle of dependency and isolation.

The geopolitical landscape of the South Caucasus has changed irreversibly. Azerbaijan’s strengthened sovereignty, Türkiye’s assertive regional diplomacy, and new transit and energy routes have made old Cold War-style alignments obsolete. Yerevan’s dilemma is not about “foreign infiltration,” but about its inability to adapt to the region’s new balance of power.

In fact, we have written on the same issues many times before. Without a doubt, this is proving itself again. Not everyone agrees with the current situation. Leaders from the Armenian diaspora, church, and nationalist figures argue that recent developments undermine the Armenian cause. These actors create a constellation of influence that opposes Yerevan’s [current] realist ideologies. What they defend is not merely a set of territorial claims, but a worldview rooted in grievance, martyrdom, and a narrative of heroic victimhood. As governments have come and gone in Yerevan, the Church has acted as a stable institution and, at times, a power center in its own right, arguably functioning as a sort of "deep state." Significant reforms and steps not taken today could be undermined at any moment in the near future.

While the paper warns of “foreign control,” the real concern for Armenia should be its own diminishing agency and relevance in regional processes such as the Middle Corridor and the Zangezur Corridor (recently labeled as the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity), initiatives that continue to progress without Yerevan’s participation or influence.

The “Trojan horse” narrative serves one purpose: to deflect responsibility from Armenia’s domestic failures and geopolitical confusion. By portraying cooperation as infiltration and partnership as espionage, such discourse isolates Armenia further from the modernizing and stabilizing trends of the South Caucasus.

In reality, sovereignty is not eroded by cooperation; it is eroded by the inability to use it responsibly.