Armenian politicians habitually call on the whole world to condemn the "attack against poor and weak Armenia" following the last large-scale provocation by the Armenian Armed Forces against Azerbaijan. Strangely enough, some Western nations still cannot or do not even try to distinguish between who is the occupier and who is the victim of occupation and ethnic cleansing.
Two of the leading nations are France and the United States, both of which have sizable Armenian diasporas. Compared to the United States, France has a clear and unambiguous position, Paris is highly concerned about Turkiye's support for Azerbaijan and the growing influence of Ankara in the region. The United States attempted to balance its relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan despite the influence of the Armenian lobby in Congress, but even so, baseless and biased opinions were voiced against Azerbaijan.
This time, the visit to Armenia by Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, shows how the United States is concerned about the peace initiative that Azerbaijan and Turkiye want to implement in the region.
On the other side, Pelosi mentioned on Twitter before leaving for Armenia that Yerevan should choose between dictatorship and democracy. Of course, first of all, this should be evaluated as the United States urging Armenia to leave Russia's sphere of influence. But can Armenia take such a step? Have the outcomes of this been analyzed in Yerevan?
At this point, it is imperative to clearly highlight both the fact that Armenia is a CSTO member state as well as Russian Military Base No. 102 in Gyumri, Armenia. Alongside Pelosi's visit, protests against the removal of this base from Armenian territory and the suspension of the country's CSTO membership have begun today in Armenia. Obviously, Yerevan is incapable of implementing these steps, regardless of how effective and substantial these protests are. For decades, "independent" Armenia served as a Russian outpost and in the current tense situation, when the country lacks the resources to alter its foreign policy, such a "historic" move is unreasonable and merely serves as a precursor to future provocations. Although Pashinyan and his staff may be aware of how unsuccessful such games against Azerbaijan are, they have to create the image of"we are resisting" since the public wants to hear the slogans "we will continue the struggle." On the other hand, Yerevan is motivated by Washington's intention to "resurrect" the OSCE Minsk Group, regardless of the fact that Yerevan is unaware of how unrealistic this goal is and that the OSCE Minsk Group has lost all relevance. Now that hatred and accusations against Russia, who recently sold them the most weapons and even armed them gratuitously, have grown in Armenia, a question arises: Do the society and political elite truly believe that the United States will join the conflict as a party and supply Armenia with weapons and ammunition? It seems that Armenia itself has not yet found the answer to this question.
Of course, Pelosi's tears, her biased remarks, and "Real politics" have nothing to do with one another. Even if the United States wanted to, it cannot fulfill Armenia's "Greater Armenia" project or its fantastical dreams and aspirations. However, it appears that Armenia will remain in the realm of fairy tales. In addition, despite all of the biased positions and temporary accusations intended to appease the Armenian lobby, the White House understands the significance and geostrategic importance of Azerbaijan in the region. Pelosi's visit to Armenia is more of an act of defiance against the United State's exclusion from the regional peace process and a move in the chess match it’s playing against Russia.