The Tale of Two Failed Leaders

By Vartan Oskanian
Former Foreign Minister of Armenia

The recent shift in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, coupled with Europe’s growing inability to sustain military and financial support, should serve as a stark warning for Armenia. Both Ukraine and Armenia—albeit at different levels and scopes—have been central to the West’s broader geopolitical strategy to weaken and contain Russia. However, as geopolitical realities shift and Western priorities evolve, Ukraine now faces the harsh reality of dwindling support—an unsettling scenario that Armenia would do well to heed.

The geopolitical trajectories of Ukraine and Armenia bear striking similarities. In both cases, leaders lacking diplomatic experience made critical miscalculations that led their nations into devastating wars—conflicts that might have been avoided with more seasoned leadership.

In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelensky’s determined resistance against Russia initially secured substantial Western military and financial aid. However, as the war dragged on, Western enthusiasm waned. Political shifts in the United States and Europe, combined with mounting economic burdens and war fatigue, led to a reassessment of priorities.

Armenia, under Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, made a similar miscalculation. Following its crushing defeat in the 44-day war of 2020, Pashinyan sought to pivot away from Russia and align more closely with the West, leading to Azerbaijan’s subsequent full control over Nagorno-Karabakh and additional territorial losses from Armenia proper.

As history has repeatedly shown, Western assurances do not always translate into tangible military or diplomatic backing. Despite Armenia’s efforts to forge new alliances, it remains largely isolated, while Azerbaijan continues its assertive policies with impunity. The lesson is clear: while Western engagement may offer economic and diplomatic incentives, it does not equate to military intervention or sustained security guarantees.

Ukraine’s predicament should also serve as a cautionary tale for Armenia, which risks further alienating its traditional security guarantor without securing meaningful alternative protections. The assumption that the West will indefinitely underwrite conflicts that align with its strategic interests has proven flawed.

Moreover, just as Ukraine’s continued leadership under Zelensky has prolonged its vulnerabilities, Armenia faces similar risks with Pashinyan at the helm. Both leaders have presided over devastating national setbacks and have yet to demonstrate the strategic foresight needed to guide their countries toward lasting stability.

Ukraine’s inevitable negotiations with Russia—much like Armenia’s dealings with Azerbaijan—require leaders unburdened by past miscalculations, losses, and humiliations. Pragmatic diplomacy, rather than the perpetuation of failed policies driven by political survival, is essential.

A few days ago, U.S. President Donald Trump accused Zelensky of leading his country into unnecessary peril, lacking popular support, and exhibiting dictatorial tendencies—criticisms that are equally applicable to Pashinyan.

Indeed, for Armenia, securing lasting peace and stability requires a strategic reassessment of its leadership and foreign policy. A change in leadership—one that prioritizes national interests over ideological alignment, fear of war, or appeasement—offers the best chance for Armenia to regain control of its future. The time for illusions is over. Armenia must understand that, in geopolitics, alliances are not based on moral alignment but on strategic necessity. It must transcend Pashinyan’s leadership and policies before finding itself in an even more vulnerable position—without allies, without options, and without a clear path forward.