Anyone who follows global diplomatic developments understands that Ukraine made a strategic mistake by relying on American backing throughout its military and political conflict with Russia. Under President Biden, the United States did indeed support Ukraine and its president, Volodymyr Zelensky. However, following the change in administration with Donald Trump's return to the White House, Washington's stance toward Ukraine shifted. Trump prefers maintaining good relations with Russia over offering blind support to Ukraine, which he views as misaligned with American interests. Thus, almost overnight, Ukraine lost its most significant advantage – the backing of Washington – marking a dramatic turning point in its story.
Ukraine's experience is not unique. Throughout its efforts to align itself with the West and move away from the post-Soviet bloc, NATO countries and the United States have disappointed it on multiple occasions. At the onset of the war, NATO, the very alliance Ukraine sought to join despite Russian opposition, did not provide military assistance. More recently, the complete reversal in U.S. policy toward Ukraine has further highlighted this pattern. Ukraine's strategy was clear: as a relatively "weak" nation seeking strength, it aimed to join the Western bloc and receive the absolute support granted to its allies. Today, it is evident that such a strategy is not sustainable in the long term for a country seeking peace and security.
Another post-Soviet country is beginning to recognize the flaws in this strategic approach – this time in the Caucasus. Armenia, which suffered a devastating defeat against Azerbaijan in the 2020 Karabakh War and again after the military campaign in 2023, has come to understand that blindly relying on a single great power is both mistaken and dangerous. Armenia's first painful shock came with Russia's lack of military support during the Second Karabakh War. For years, Armenia cooperated closely with Russia, hosting a Russian military base on its territory, which led to bitter disappointment in Yerevan when Russian troops stationed in Armenia did not intervene to repel Azerbaijani forces.
Moreover, Armenia is a member of the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a military alliance based on collective defense – similar to NATO. The CSTO, comprising six countries, is meant to provide military cooperation and ensure the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its members. Given this framework, Armenia was stunned to realize that Russian support would not materialize, leaving it to confront Azerbaijan alone.
Following Armenia's defeat and the harsh reality of being abandoned by Russia – the very power in which it had placed its trust – Yerevan began searching for a new patron. Armenia explored options in India, approached France, and reached out to other Western players. Ultimately, under pressure and uncertainty, Armenia hastily signed a strategic partnership agreement with the United States in January 2025, just days before the newly re-elected U.S. president took office. However, two months later, President Trump dramatically shifted American foreign policy, announcing that the U.S. would scale back its support for European allies and seek reconciliation with Russia. Today, Armenians are coming to terms with the realization that their strategy was flawed.
Azerbaijan, in contrast, chose a different path. For three decades, Azerbaijan watched as Armenia controlled Nagorno-Karabakh with Russian backing. Instead of seeking another great power to protect its interests, Azerbaijan focused on strengthening itself. Baku deepened its alliance with Turkey while simultaneously enhancing its cooperation with Israel. Azerbaijan also maintained ties with global powers, keeping diplomatic channels open with Russia – Armenia's patron – while gradually fostering relationships with the U.S. and the West.
Despite these strong partnerships, Azerbaijan did not overlook its regional adversaries and even sought to improve relations with Iran, historically one of its greatest rivals. Unlike Armenia, which placed its hopes in external support, Azerbaijan took proactive steps, leveraging its natural resources and strategic advantages to build its own strength. When the Second Karabakh War erupted in 2020, Azerbaijan benefited from economic and military assistance from its allies, while Armenia waited in vain for Russian aid that never arrived.
Now, with the war concluded in a decisive Azerbaijani victory and the liberation of Karabakh from Armenian occupation, the Caucasus region is grappling with the consequences. Without Russian military support, Armenia resorted to desperate measures, even by wartime standards. The Armenian government ordered the illegal Karabakh administration to launch indiscriminate attacks on historic Azerbaijani cities, including Ganja, Tartar, Barda, Mingachevir, and the capital, Baku. This was later confirmed during interrogations of Karabakh's former leaders following Armenia's defeat.
To this day, Baku holds 23 Armenian individuals in custody on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. Beyond the immediate human toll, Armenia inflicted severe damage on Azerbaijan, with 20% of Azerbaijani territory suffering extensive destruction during the conflict. Entire residential areas remain uninhabitable, forcing Azerbaijan's government to allocate significant resources toward reconstruction. Moreover, Armenian forces planted landmines across the region, further complicating Azerbaijan's recovery. Given these realities, Baku argues that it should not bear the financial burden of the devastation inflicted upon it – especially since the aggressor lost the war. Seeking reparations aligns with international legal norms, as compensation for war-related damages is a widely accepted principle in international law.
Armenia, however, is in no position to pay the damages that Azerbaijan is likely to demand. Lacking a powerful ally to ensure its security, Armenia has resorted to fabricating a revised historical narrative to avoid economic collapse. Yet no amount of denial can change Azerbaijan's legitimate claim. If Armenia cannot provide financial compensation, it may be forced to offer an equivalent concession. One likely scenario is the opening of the Zangezur Corridor, including its redevelopment – an outcome reminiscent of historical agreements such as the return of Alsace-Lorraine from Germany to France.
In conclusion, the contrasting strategies of these two neighboring, conflict-ridden states highlight the consequences of different approaches to national security. One nation, which occupied its neighbor's territory, placed its fate in the hands of a powerful ally, expecting protection in times of crisis. The other, whose land was taken illegally, chose to strengthen itself by forging diverse and strategic relationships across various geopolitical spheres. Ultimately, the country that pursued a short-term reliance on an external protector did not receive the promised defense. Meanwhile, the nation that built a broad network of alliances reaped military and diplomatic support, helping secure victory and reclaim its lost territory. This is a lesson that Israel can learn from to never rely too much on one ally and instead to build oneself up.
