Redefining Security: Polls Show Armenians’ Strong Preference for Strategic Independence

5-minute read

The seismic shifts in regional security dynamics following the conflicts of 2020 and 2023 have prompted a fundamental reassessment of defense and security priorities among Armenians worldwide. Drawing from comprehensive poll  data collected by Armagora.am, a research initiative of The FUTURE ARMENIAN Foundation, the fourth analytical piece in the series examines evolving perspectives on national security, strategic partnerships, and defense readiness among Armenian respondents both within the Republic and across the global diaspora.

The traditional pillars of Armenian security thinking have centered around three main approaches: integration with existing security frameworks, bilateral strategic partnerships, and domestic military capability development. While these categories provide a useful analytical framework, the poll data reveals an increasingly nuanced and multidimensional understanding of security challenges among respondents. A striking 71.77% support prioritizing independent defense capabilities, yet this preference for strategic autonomy doesn’t translate to isolationism. Instead, it reflects a sophisticated grasp of contemporary security dynamics by members of a nation whose internal political dynamics have always been influenced by outside factors, and where national resilience and international cooperation must be carefully calibrated. The data points to an emerging consensus that Armenia’s security architecture requires both robust internal capabilities and carefully selected external partnerships, rather than total dependence on any single alliance system.

This strategic recalibration is further evidenced by respondents’ robust willingness to contribute to national defense, with over 81% expressing readiness to participate in either combat or non-combat roles. This high level of engagement suggests a population acutely aware of security challenges and prepared to take active roles in addressing them. Simultaneously, the data reveals a marked shift in perceptions of traditional security partnerships. The majority support for withdrawal from the CSTO (52.52%) alongside skepticism toward NATO membership (48.12% against) indicates a preference for strategic flexibility over rigid alliance commitments. This stance appears to be reinforced by respondents’ identification of key security challenges, where external factors – particularly regional powers’ involvement – are seen as primary concerns. This fits into comments made by UCL lecturer Eduard Abrahamyan, PhD, regarding the prospects of Armenia leaving the CSTO. “Leaving the CSTO doesn’t automatically mean severing relations with Russia. We saw this when Uzbekistan suspended its membership in the alliance back in 2012, and yet saw a strategic intensification of its relationship with Moscow”.

Noting with approval the general awareness in the Armenian population of the lack of compatibility between Armenia’s security concerns and the actions of the CSTO, Dr. Abrahamyan cautions that exiting the alliance would require Armenia to make serious efforts to prioritize its own national security resources. Indeed, referencing the following question about Armenia taking steps to acquire NATO membership in the CSTO’s stead, the UK-based academic warns that countries like Armenia need to focus on solving their security concerns locally rather than outsourcing them to foreign security alliances. “When expanding, NATO is interested in integrating candidate countries which, first of all, are capable of their own defense, and second of all, offer a new paradigm to the alliance as a whole”.

Particularly noteworthy is the emergence of new potential strategic partnerships in respondents’ perspectives. France (30.34%) and India (23.36%) are viewed as the most promising contributors to Armenia’s security, suggesting a desire to diversify security relationships beyond traditional regional powers. This reorientation appears to be driven by a clear-eyed assessment of contemporary threats, with Turkey being identified as the primary security concern (34.93%) after Azerbaijan, followed by a complex relationship with Russia, which is simultaneously viewed as both a potential threat (25.63%) and a marginal security contributor (9.45%).

The poll  data also reveals a pragmatic approach to regional engagement, particularly evident in attitudes toward Turkey. Despite identifying Turkey as a primary security threat, respondents are almost evenly split on the prospect of opening the Armenian-Turkish border (43.9% negative, 43.72% positive). This suggests a growing recognition that security considerations must be balanced with economic and diplomatic imperatives, even in relationships marked by historical complexity.

Looking ahead, these findings suggest a profound transformation in Armenian security thinking. The preference for strategic autonomy, combined with openness to diverse partnerships and pragmatic regional engagement, points to an emerging security doctrine that prioritizes flexibility and self-reliance while remaining open to strategic cooperation. This evolution reflects both the lessons learned from recent conflicts and a forward-looking assessment of Armenia’s security needs in an increasingly complex regional environment.

However, this strategic reorientation faces significant challenges. The recognition of institutional weaknesses as a key factor in recent military setbacks (20.38% cited lack of established state and security institutions) suggests that building effective independent capabilities will require substantial internal reforms alongside external partnerships. The path forward appears to lie in carefully balancing the strong desire for strategic autonomy with the practical necessities of international cooperation, while simultaneously strengthening domestic institutional capabilities.

Self-Reliance Preference
Derived from independent capabilities support (71.77% and defense participation willingness (81%)
Score: 85

Institutional Reform Priority
Recognition of institutional weaknesses (20.38%) and internal unity issues (13.78%)
Score: 55

New Partnership Openness
Based on positive views of France (30.34%) and India (23.36%) as security partners
Score: 65

Alliance Skepticism
Combined CSTO withdrawal support (52.52%) and NATO hesitancy (48.12% against)
Score: 70

Regional Pragmatism
Equal split on Turkey border opening despite threat perception
Score: 45

RED – Traditional Partnerships (Russia Relations)

• High contradiction (65) due to viewing Russia as both a threat and a partner
• High adaptation potential (80) suggesting flexibility in future relationship
• Large bubble size indicating continued importance in strategic thinking

DARK BLUE – Regional Relations (Turkey Engagement)

• Highest contradiction level (75) reflecting complex position
• Moderate adaptation potential (70)
• Medium-large bubble size showing significant strategic weight
• Captures the pragmatic approach despite historical tensions

PURPLE – International Alliances (Alliance Strategy)

• Moderate contradiction (55) in alliance preferences
• Highest adaptation potential (90) suggesting openness to new formats
• Smaller bubble size reflecting reduced emphasis on formal alliances
• Reflects CSTO exit support while maintaining NATO skepticism

GREEN – Internal Capabilities (Defense Posture)

• Lowest contradiction (45) indicating clear strategic direction
• High adaptation potential (85)
• Large bubble size showing priority in strategic thinking
• Aligns with strong preference for self-reliance

LIGHT BLUE – Strategic Position (Regional Role)

• Moderate-high contradiction (60) in positioning
• Moderate-high adaptation (75)
• Smallest bubble size suggesting this is still developing
• Represents broader balancing act in regional politics

Size of bubbles indicates relative importance in security thinking
Higher adaptive potential suggests greater room for strategic flexibility