The article "Alternative Projects" presented the article of former Armenian Foreign Minister Ara Ayvazyan. The system of non-voter sovereignty, neither the balance of the 19th century, nor the liberal procedure of the Cold War, does not characterize the current reality. Today, a new, fragmented world order is being outlined today, where the uncontrollable force and interests are pushing out ideology, right and common values.
The role of the United States is in the focus of this change. As a long time, the guarantor of the world order, the United States, has passed a transaction domination during the current administration, where the "America First" principle has come to replace world responsibility. The United States still maintains the characteristics of the empire, the military, financial and technological hegemony, but refuses to its former universityistic mission. It is not about new self-immoral behavior, but about new self-centered behavior. World role, yes, but only on your own interests and conditions. As a result, the former architecture of international relations, which was based on the rules, blocs, ideological circles and obligations, collapses.
This rejection of universalism is strengthened by reevaluation of globalization. What was a source of power in the past, now and more and more often described by American political circles as a threat, the loss of industrial leadership, addiction to technological and demographic challenges. The United States has begun to limit globalization, which was once encouraged and dominated, and was reoriented to strategic sovereignty and economic self-sufficiency. Over the decades, the European Union has developed as a pursuit, reliability, reliability and security, and not the power of international rules. The US guaranteed NATO canopy allowed Europe not to be at the dangerous front lines of geopolitics.
However, in the age of present, American defense is no longer perceived as unconditional in the centuries of transaction. The United States is demanding that its allies pay for their security and participate in its own security and additional responsibilities. All this destroys the European security model. In addition, the migration crisis, the growth of Eurasepticism, in some countries, the trends of authoritarianism, economic disagreements between Europe's northern and southern. The EU is unable to respond quickly to threats, as decisions are accepted through consensus, and the interests of France, Germany, Poland, Italy, Hungary and the Baltic States are often different. Strategic solidarity is increasingly giving way to its place for national selfishness. The EU remains an economic space, but loses political and strategic importance. Military dependence increases, and internal solidarity is weakening. The "Europe of Different Speeds" appears. Therefore, the EU is facing a serious dilemma. Or become a full player with his own army, foreign policy, or strategic thinking, or staying economic space, under the growing external pressure. The world goes to multiplicity, but it does not mean that it becomes fairer. Without one coordinating center, the world order is divided into two possible scenarios. The first is a regional hegemony world, where large powers control their influence zones and compete in the outskirts without global ambitions. The second is the world of situational, transaction relationships, where every state operates alone, based on short-term interests and temporary alliances. In both cases, there will be a renunciation of the idea of universal norms and turns international relations into competition, not laws. In such conditions, the use of force ceases to be unacceptable and emergency exception, it becomes a legal tool again.
The war will be seen again not as a deviation, but as part of a strategic calculation. The more destruction of the international institutions, the more attractive and effective it will seem to be aggression. And in such a world, only the states that will maintain their ability to curb and force their ability to use force. After the defeats of 2020-2023, the authorities have announced a new strategy based on the idea of the idea of the "Peace Age" on the rejection of the confrontation and democratic revival. This vision suggests that the terms of domestic reforms and national thinking will be created for long-term peace. In the context of the new international order, such a strategy seems dangerous and premature. Peace that seeks to confirm Yerevan, implies the existence of guarantors, rules and institutional circles.
Meanwhile, it is ignored that the guarantors have lost their interest and will, and the rules, their strength. In such an environment, unilateral reconciliation policy becomes not peace, but a resolution of vulnerability. It is no coincidence that Turkey and Azerbaijan, acting in accordance with the logic of force policy, do not consider Armenia's "goodness" as a stimulus for de-division. On the contrary, they consider it a sign of weakness, so they consistently strengthen military, territorial, diplomatic and ideological pressure.
States dies not from a dream, but from the inability to protect themselves. The main function of each state is to ensure the safety of citizens and the defense of sovereignty. No declaration, no signed document can replace this vital force component. Current Armenia remained without strategic guarantors, its defense capabilities are limited, and the environment is aggressive. In such a situation, make peace without restraint, and to leave the values without defense means to push the country towards the strategic vulnerability. This is why the actions of the Armenian leadership contradict the logic of the international situation. The steps of official Yerevan are lacking the strategic analysis of the real goals of its neighbors in the world.
The Armenian authorities do not take into account the main one. Neither democratization, non-governmental rhetoric, nor even legal concessions in a world where the law is ruled. However, the tragedy is that the instinct of memory, history classes that can lead to the destruction of real Armenia, but in the last 34 years.
And then the story, not as a myth, but as a tragedy, will return to remind us that states die not from a dream, but from the inability to protect themselves.
