Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Opinion

Opinion: An Armenian-Georgian strategic relationship can help both countries face geo-political challenges

16 November 2017

Georgia and Armenia need to develop a strategic relationship in order to see off a number of geo-political challenges, argues Benyamin Poghosyan in this op-ed for commonspace.eu

Armenia and Georgia are both facing tough foreign policy challenges. Armenia has to deal with constant, joint, Azerbaijani-Turkish pressure over the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Another hard task is the effort to develop   relations with the Euro-Atlantic institutions, whilst simultaneously not jeopardizing strategic relations with Russia. The alliance with Moscow is itself a challenge given Armenia's overdependence on Russia, and Russia's growing cooperation with Turkey and Azerbaijan.

Armenia's isolation is only strengthening Russia's influence over Yerevan, therefore Russia has no interest to help Armenia become more accessible for international co-operation.

Armenia has friendly relations with Iran, but Tehran has limited influence in the South Caucasus. Iran's vital interests are in the Middle East where it has to deal with the momentum of a Saudi led anti-Iranian campaign, supported by the US and Israel.

Georgia is in a precarious situation too. The officially declared policy of euro-Atlantic integration has reached its limits, with almost zero chances of NATO or EU membership for the foreseeable future. The Association Agreement with DCFTA and visa free travel to Europe probably are the maximum which EU is able and willing to deliver. NATO membership is another non-realistic perspective, and Georgia has to satisfy itself with various aid programs and projects, but with no membership potential.

Meanwhile, the declared policy of Euro-Atlantic integration is a big irritator for Russia which sees the South Caucasus as a sphere of its legitimate interests, and perceives any attempts to bring Western institutions in the region as hostile actions. The situation is aggravated by Russia's decision to recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia which makes any improvement in Russia-Georgia relations almost impossible. 

Another feature in Georgia's foreign policy is its growing alliance with Azerbaijan and Turkey. Georgia is serving as a bridge connecting the two countries. Baku-Tbilisi-Jeyhan oil and Baku- Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipelines, as well as the recently opened Baku - Tbilisi - Kars railway, are examples of such policy. Georgia certainly gains financial and geopolitical benefits from its transit role, but as a direct result of such policy Georgia is facing growing Turkish and Azerbaijani influence, with no clear option as to how to balance them.

In the current geopolitical juncture of the South Caucasus the development of a truly strategic partnership between Armenia and Georgia is a viable option, that may enable the two countries to overcome their geopolitical problems.

Armenia needs secure routes towards the outside world. Currently 70 percent of Armenia's trade passes through Georgia -  either to Europe via the Black Sea, or to Russia via the Georgia - Russia land border. To counter Azerbaijani - Turkish pressure, as well as to seek ways to diminish its overdependence on Russia, Armenia needs to be involved in transit projects that are important for bigger players acting in the region. Given the upcoming signature of Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with the EU, as well as growing Chinese involvement in the region, the best solution for Armenia would be the inclusion in the transit corridor connecting China with EU. Chinese interests in Armenia may thus be used as a balancing factor countering Azerbaijan and Turkey.

The signature of CEPA may transform Armenia into a model of how states in post-soviet space may steer their relations with both Russia and EU. As a Eurasian Economic Union member state Armenia can be an example of how to be a member of Russia-led organizations, and sign cooperation agreements with the EU.

Meanwhile, any new transit project which may involve Armenia definitely should pass through Georgia. Georgia is a corridor for Armenia to be connected both with the EAEU and EU. In this context, raising relations with Georgia to the level of strategic partnership is vital for furthering Armenia's national interests.

Armenia is a vital partner for Georgia too. Given the deadlock with its relations with Russia, and with no perspectives for NATO or EU membership, Georgia may face the reality of a growing geopolitical and geo-economic dependence on Azerbaijan and Turkey. Georgia needs to balance its relations with Baku and Ankara. Both Iran and China are positioned well to be to provide such counterweight, and Armenia has a potential to serve as an important player here. Armenia is providing Georgia direct land access to Iran and can be a route for Iranian exports towards the EU via the Georgian Black Sea ports. If Georgia and Armenia achieve success in launching negotiations with China, Iran and EU to use the Iran - Black sea transit as an additional route for China - EU trade   this will, in a tangible way, increase both countries geo-political potential.

Thus, both Armenia and Georgia need to change the current geopolitical status quo in the South Caucasus.  Moves in that direction are more likely to succeed if they take them jointly. The development of a strategic partnership between the two countries will serve   the vital national interests of Yerevan and Tbilisi, and will strengthen their positions in the region.    

Source: Dr. Benyamin Poghosyan is the Executive Director of the Political Science Association of Armenia. He contributed this op-ed to commonspace.eu  

Photo: The Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Georgia speaking at a press conference in Yerevan earlier this year. (Picture courtesy of the press service of the Ministry of foreign Affairs of Armenia)

 

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security
Trending

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026
Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut