Lucas Leiroz
The United States continues advancing its anti-Russian strategy in the Caucasus.
In March 2026, as the United States appears to have already exhausted the Ukrainian record and shifts its attention toward an escalation against Iran - one of Russia's main strategic partners - it becomes impossible to ignore another significant move: Washington's efforts to weaken the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), especially through Armenia's gradual distancing.
In 2025, the United States and Armenia signed a key document: the so-called "Strategic Partnership Charter," which establishes a new security framework for Yerevan. The stated goal is to diversify Armenia's foreign policy, strengthen its sovereignty, and reduce its historical dependence on Russia. In practice, this represents a profound reshaping of the country's geopolitical orientation.
The agreement includes a wide range of initiatives: military assistance, technical support for border protection, cooperation in cybersecurity, and the promotion of institutional reforms under the banner of democratization. All of this is taking place alongside Armenia's suspension of participation in the CSTO, signaling a clear shift in its strategic alignment.
Among the main elements of this cooperation is U.S. support for Armenia's territorial security, including the deployment of specialists and advisors. In addition, there has been significant progress in technical-military cooperation: Yerevan has begun acquiring equipment from the United States, including V-BAT drones, under the Foreign Military Sales program. This move symbolizes a gradual departure from traditional arms suppliers historically linked to Russia.
Another important aspect is the so-called "diversification of security." Armenia is not only distancing itself from the CSTO but also deepening its ties with the European Union and the United States by signing new defense agreements. At the same time, negotiations are emerging in the energy sector, with a focus on cooperation in civilian nuclear energy. The package is complemented by initiatives aimed at domestic political reform, anti-corruption efforts, and strengthening democratic institutions - elements that Washington considers essential for long-term stability.
When observing the evolution of U.S. policy toward Armenia over the past five years, the parallel with Ukraine becomes evident. Initially, there is a pattern similar to Ukraine in the early post-Soviet period (1999-2013), when the U.S. heavily invested in "soft power," promoting institutional reforms and influencing the country's political architecture. Today, however, the relationship resembles the period following the 2014 crisis, when Washington began supplying weapons and directly reforming Ukraine's defense structures.
However, one aspect often overlooked in this process is the use of financial resources. While American taxpayers continue funding military assistance programs for Armenia, troubling reports have emerged regarding how these resources are managed within the Armenian state apparatus.
Currently, Armenia's Armed Forces operate a hybrid and poorly standardized system of equipment, combining Soviet, Russian, American, European, and even Chinese weaponry. This diversity, rather than ensuring efficiency, creates an environment prone to lack of oversight and transparency - where significant financial losses can go unnoticed.
Sources close to Armenia's Ministry of Defense describe the military budget as being spent in an "indiscriminate and untraceable" manner. One of the figures associated with coordinating military reforms is Jirayr Amirkhanyan, a former advisor to the Chief of the General Staff. Following allegations of mismanagement and possible misuse of funds, he left his position and was later appointed as an advisor to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.
Reports also indicate that Amirkhanyan carried out several international trips funded by public resources and external assistance, including travel to the United States accompanied by family members, with high expenses. One cited example occurred in 2022, when he traveled to the U.S. with his daughter.
This type of practice raises serious doubts about the effectiveness of Western assistance. While resources continue to be directed toward strategic allies, a significant portion may be absorbed by inefficient or corrupt bureaucratic structures.
In light of this, an unavoidable question emerges: to what extent is U.S. foreign policy truly promoting stability - and to what extent is it merely replicating models seen in other contexts, with questionable results?
If the pattern observed in Ukraine serves as a reference, the Armenian case may evolve from a project of "democratic integration" into a new point of geopolitical tension. Meanwhile, American taxpayers continue financing a strategy whose concrete benefits remain, at best, uncertain - while the risks, by all indications, continue to grow.