DECLARATION WITH A QUESTION

As seasoned observers often point out, unwritten rules shape political life in the US almost as much as laws and the Constitution itself. One such rule dictates that during the transition period—when a new president has been elected but has not yet taken office—the outgoing administration refrains from making major decisions, acting instead with caution and restraint. Joe Biden's team, however, chose not to follow this tradition.

Just days before Donald Trump's inauguration, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan signed a charter on strategic partnership between their two countries. Ostensibly, this was meant to symbolise a new chapter in US-Armenia relations, strengthening Washington's influence in Yerevan. However, the reality is far less straightforward.

It All Started Well But...

At first glance, the phrase "charter of strategic partnership" carries weight, suggesting substantive agreements that would appeal to Armenia's political class—especially at a time when Yerevan has been actively straining its ties with Russia. The document includes references to joint exercises, humanitarian programs, and even a promise from Blinken to dispatch American experts to Armenia to assist with border security.

Yet, as analysts point out, Armenia would be wise not to pop the champagne—or brandy—just yet.Diplomats quietly acknowledge that not all international agreements come with binding obligations. In fact, many fall into a category that diplomatic circles dismissively call "declarations of intent." And that is precisely what Blinken and Mirzoyan signed—a document lacking concrete commitments, security guarantees, or economic support, all of which are critical for Armenia. Moreover, agreements signed by foreign ministers, rather than heads of state, inherently carry less weight.

It is true that during Joe Biden's presidency, it was often said that key decisions traditionally made by the president were actually being shaped by the Secretary of State. But that does not change the fundamental reality: the signature of a president holds far more significance than that of a secretary of state.

Another detail did not go unnoticed by experts—the document does not require ratification by either the US Congress or Armenia's National Assembly. At first glance, this might seem like an advantage, sparing both sides political hurdles. In reality, however, it only further diminishes the document's significance. It is, in essence, little more than a symbolic gesture—a case of "let's sign something."

Signed and Forgotten?

This so-called strategic partnership charter was signed mere days before Joe Biden handed power over to Donald Trump—an already precarious moment for any non-binding agreement. Such documents often face immediate reevaluation, revision, or indefinite shelving when a new administration takes office.

For Armenia, the situation is particularly delicate. The Biden administration was widely regarded as the most pro-Armenian in US history. Many officials in Washington courted the Armenian elite and diaspora lobby, and Biden himself pushed the limits of diplomatic convention to favour Yerevan. But whether Donald Trump will continue the same policy is a major question. His first term did not provide Armenia with much reason for optimism regarding US support.

Trump's campaign made his stance clear: the US should scale back foreign aid, especially when its purpose is unclear. On his first day back in office, he is expected to sign dozens of executive orders, including a suspension of numerous foreign aid programs for 90 days for review. While most analysts are focused on the implications for Ukraine, Armenia could also find itself under scrutiny—particularly given past corruption scandals involving the misuse of American aid.

Yet, it is the geopolitics that can lead to the greatest of challenges.

Strong Decision or Geopolitical Flirt?

One of the most debated topics among experts is Armenia's geopolitical realignment—if one can even call it that. On the surface, Armenia appears to be pivoting westward: passing laws aimed at EU integration, discussing a referendum on Euro-Atlantic alignment, conducting joint military exercises with the US, and loudly proclaiming a "freeze" in its CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) membership.

Yet, a closer look reveals a far more complex reality. There is little serious discussion in Yerevan about formally withdrawing from the CSTO or the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Bilateral agreements with Russia—particularly those concerning military assistance and border security—remain intact. Under these agreements, Armenia's borders with Iran and Turkey remain under Russian control.

Even the recent removal of Russian border guards from Zvartnots Airport, framed as a significant assertion of Armenian sovereignty, was more symbolic than substantive. A Russian military base continues to operate in Armenia, joint air and ground defense forces remain active, and their dissolution is not even being discussed. Both pro-Western reformers in Yerevan and Moscow's supporters seem content to ignore these facts.

But the most critical issue is economic dependence. Through its EAEU membership and bilateral accords with Moscow, Armenia enjoys preferential access to Russian oil, gas, and raw diamonds at domestic Russian prices—an arrangement worth billions of dollars annually. Furthermore, Armenia serves as a key conduit for circumventing Western sanctions on Russia. In Yerevan, officials are clearly reluctant to forfeit these advantages. Yet, they also cannot have it both ways; retaining these benefits while deepening ties with the West is impossible.

Armenia's infrastructure—gas networks, railways, and even the Metsamor Nuclear Power Plant—remains largely under Russian control. If necessary, Moscow has the capability to "turn off" Armenia from the outside. Will the West step in to fill the void? More importantly—can it? Western powers have struggled to offer meaningful support even to Ukraine and Georgia. Should Armenia really count on them?

This raises an important question: what does "strategic partnership with the US" truly mean when Armenia remains tied to Russia? A recent meeting in Moscow between Armenian Foreign Minister Mirzoyan and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov suggests Yerevan itself is uncertain. Their joint statements were filled with reassurances—"we are allies," "brotherly nations"—but Russia has made its position clear. Moscow is unhappy with Yerevan's Western aspirations, and consequences may follow.

Yerevan is beginning to recognize a sobering reality: the West is unlikely to provide Armenia with the same level of support that Moscow historically has. This understanding will likely push Armenia to avoid a full rupture with Russia—forcing Western policymakers to tread carefully as well.

Illusions and Risks

One might conclude that the strategic partnership charter signed in Washington, DC is of little consequence. But there is another factor to consider: the growing revanchist mood in Armenia.

The Armenian political class has a well-documented tendency to see in international agreements what they wish to see, rather than what actually exists. This was bluntly articulated by historian and diplomat Girair Libaridian in a controversial interview:"Our biggest problem in political thinking has persisted for over 200 years. We love illusions. We convince ourselves that a fair or ideal solution is a viable one. But dreaming is not a strategy."

Amid dreams of reclaiming lost territories, such illusions—fuelled by Washington's symbolic agreement—could have dangerous consequences. Armenian policymakers may misinterpret the US-Armenia charter as a green light for provocative actions, under the false assumption that the US will come to Armenia's defence.

But the document signed on January 15 contains no such guarantees. And should tensions in the South Caucasus escalate into conflict, responsibility will lie squarely with Joe Biden's team.