Can Armenia Avoid Choosing Sides Between Russia and the West?

As Russia and the Western alliance become increasingly adversarial-with Russia and the West, in Sargsyan’s words, no longer merely in tension but enemies fighting each other in Ukraine-smaller nations face an acute dilemma: pledge allegiance to one side, or attempt to remain neutral and maintain strategic flexibility. For Armenia, this tension has become acute, with both Moscow and Brussels demanding that Pashinyan clarify where the country stands.

Geopolitical analyst Suren Sargsyan articulates a hard truth for small states caught between great powers: alignment with either side carries catastrophic risks. Taking sides when global players are in direct conflict threatens Armenia’s economy, security, and sovereignty. The safest course, Sargsyan suggests, is to delay commitment as long as possible, allowing time to assess the trajectory of the Ukraine war, U.S.-Russia relations, and the broader stability of the Western alliance itself. He notes that the cohesion of the “collective West” has fractured under Trump, with U.S.-EU relations strained and American policy toward Europe unpredictable.

Pashinyan’s strategy, in Sargsyan’s view, is to wait: keep CSTO membership frozen rather than withdrawn, cultivate EU ties, and avoid any formal step that locks Armenia into a single camp. Sargsyan adds that Pashinyan is watching not only where threats to Armenia come from, but where threats to his own hold on power come from. This approach is not without cost-it exposes Armenia to pressure and criticism-but Sargsyan suggests it is preferable to the catastrophic costs of explicit alignment. For observers of small-state foreign policy, this moment illuminates the strategic calculus facing nations squeezed between rival superpowers: survival often depends not on bold choices, but on postponing them until the global balance shifts more clearly.