Regional Security Studies

Reassessing Armenia’s Deterrence Strategy in 2025

Introduction Nearly five years have passed since Armenia’s defeat in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, almost three years since Azerbaijan’s September 2022 attack on Armenia’s territory, and more than 12 months since the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh. This sequence of defeats and crises has laid bare the near-total failure of Armenia’s deterrence mechanisms. Since 2023, the conflict has been in a no peace no war limbo, while Azerbaijan continues to use bellicose rhetoric and exert military pressure on Armenia, regularly opening fire on Armenian border villages and accusing Armenia of doing the same without providing any evidence. At the same time, over the past few years, some elements have shifted in Armenia’s deterrence configuration that must be taken into account. The persisting security risks in Armenia, together with uncertain geopolitical dynamics, have underlined the necessity of continuously strengthening and adapting Armenia’s deterrence strategy. In this paper, we review the ongoing process of rebuilding Armenia’s deterrence mechanisms, in particular the reforms of the Armed Forces and the diversification of its foreign policy. We also make recommendations regarding defense procurement and planning, capacity building and the local defense industry. From Concepts to Implementation Since the last edition of this paper in 2023, Armenia has continued steadily to diversify its security architecture. Defense cooperation with India and France is now up and running. These countries have become the two largest suppliers of military equipment to Armenia and training to the Armenian Armed Forces. Despite this progress, however, the military balance is still not in Armenia’s favor and no external power has provided full military guarantees to Armenia, as was the case with Russia before 2020. In the absence of a fully developed deterrence plan and in the midst of persistent threats of renewed aggression from Azerbaijan, Armenia continues to upgrade its military structure, diplomacy and foreign policy resources. In this volatile and tense environment, putting in place these three pillars of Armenian deterrence should be the main priority. Since 2023, Armenia has published its long-term Armed Forces Transformation Concept through 2035 and finalized the Comprehensive Defense Concept and Territorial Defense Troops Concept, which are important steps in the right direction. Having said that, the pace of ongoing military reforms remains suboptimal. The implementation of the abovementioned strategic frameworks has been fragmented and is heavily dependent on the individual capacities of the civil servants and officers in charge of these portfolios. This underscores the need for further improvement of governance in Armenia and capacity-building in the state apparatus. For example, while artillery forces have made significant strides in operational capability since 2020, the Territorial Defense Forces remain underdeveloped. Despite long- anticipated legislative changes and the formal adoption of the Territorial Defense Troops Concept, they have yet to emerge as a meaningful component of national defense. Recommendations Learning the Lessons of 2020–2023 Following its victory in the 1992–1994 war, Armenia initially maintained military and diplomatic superiority over Azerbaijan, partly due to Russia’s embargo on arms sales, which was informally breached to Armenia’s benefit. This advantage began to decline after 2002 when President Vladimir Putin lifted the embargo, enabling Azerbaijan to capitalize on growing oil and gas revenues and increase arms imports from Russia and Israel starting in 2007. In response, Armenia adopted a defensive military doctrine emphasizing cooperation within Russian-led structures, including the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s Integrated Air Defense System and the United Group of Forces. Armenia also sought to bolster its missile capabilities, acquiring modern Iskander missiles in 2016 to serve as a strategic deterrent by threatening Azerbaijani critical infrastructure. However, persistent internal challenges—including widespread corruption, nepotism, ineffective procurement practices, low-quality military education, and poor strategic planning—significantly diminished Armenia’s military capabilities, undermining its ability to counter Azerbaijan’s military growth effectively. Yerevan took steps to reverse its strategic decline after the bitter defeat of 2020 and the Azerbaijani attacks of September 2022. It dramatically increased defense spending, actively engaged in defense reform, and pursued new partnerships, particularly with India and France. Armenia also expanded its defense cooperation with the United States and Iran. Armenia’s defense spending reflects a determined, constrained response to persistent threats. A 128% increase in its defense budget between 2020 and 2025—reaching $1.7 billion—marks a significant shift in national priorities. At the same time, Armenia’s defense expenditure remains well behind that of Azerbaijan, whose budget reached nearly $5 billion in 2025. Armenia is conducting the largest military procurement drive in its history, totaling approximately $2.5 billion. Recent agreements with India include the acquisition of 155-mm ATAGS towed artillery, 72 units of 155- mm MArG self-propelled guns, Pinaka multiple-launch rocket systems, Akash surface-to-air missile systems, Zen anti- drone technologies, Konkurs-M anti- tank missiles, small arms, and ammunition. In 2024, Armenia and India signed an agreement on military training and institutional cooperation. Armenia has procured three GM-200 radars from France, 50 Bastion armored vehicles, 36 Caesar 155-mm self-propelled artillery systems, and various small arms and equipment. France and the United States have actively supported Armenia’s ongoing defense reforms. Concurrently, Yerevan has invested heavily in constructing fortified defensive structures along its borders— a strategy indicative of a primarily defensive posture. In addition, the Armenian Armed Forces hold contracts exceeding $420 million with domestic producers, underscoring the growing capacity of the national defense industry. Assessing the Military Reform Agenda The 2020 war and subsequent standoffs with Azerbaijan have tested Armenia’s deterrence capabilities and its ability to wage modern war. Armenia’s defense needs require sustained, in-depth military reform, talent development, and institutional capacity-building. However, ongoing efforts remain fragmented and in some cases are being implemented more slowly than necessary. Forthcoming reforms, as part of executing the Armed Forces Transformation and Comprehensive Defense Concepts, must include the following steps: Foreign Policy Diversification Another key element in developing an effective deterrence strategy is establishing a coherent and diversified foreign policy—one that provides Armenia with reliable partners and broad-based diplomatic support. The importance of optimal foreign policy and diplomacy undervalued, as should not be Armenia faces foreign policy challenges not only from Azerbaijan but also from Turkey. Besides, simultaneously

Reassessing Armenia’s Deterrence Strategy in 2025 Read More »

Armenia vs. Azerbaijan: Defense Budgets, Alliances, and the Illusion of Peace

The publication was originally published in Mediamax. The enduring conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan casts a long shadow over the South Caucasus, a region crucial for global energy routes and geopolitical stability. The article examines how Armenia, a small nation under persistent threat, is recalibrating its defense strategies amidst escalating regional tensions and Azerbaijan’s aggressive military build-up. It reveals the broader implications of this rivalry for democratic alliances, military modernization, and peace in a fractious area bridging Europe and Asia. Background (Since 2020, this region has been a cauldron of volatility, with Armenia suffering repeated blows from Azerbaijan’s unrelenting aggression.)Starting from 2020, countries were involved in several large-scale escalations, which included the 2020 Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, the complete takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 by Azerbaijan, and the direct Azerbaijani occupation of Armenia’s proper territory in 2021 and 2022. Despite the fact that Baku gained everything it wished before the 2020 war and Yerevan is ready to sign a peace agreement, it continues persistent military pressure to get even more concessions from Armenia. The key issue is the so-called Zangezur Corridor: a route connecting Azerbaijan’s mainland with the Nachichevan exclave via Armenian territory, beyond the control of the Republic of Armenia. Armenia’s increasing defense expenditures reflect a calculated response to enduring threats and regional instability. Yerevan’s focus has shifted toward safeguarding its sovereignty and territorial integrity.  Amidst these challenges, Armenia’s defense strategy seeks to establish a credible deterrent rooted in alliances with democratic nations and investments in modernized military infrastructure.  At the same time, Azerbaijan continues its militarization and modernizes its armed forces,  bolstered by significant weapons procurement from Israel, Turkey, and countries in Eastern Europe. The article adeptly traces the escalation in defense budgets of Armenia and Azerbaijan over the past five years. Military Spending Azerbaijan’s spending trajectory is striking, climbing from USD 2.2 billion in 2020 to a projected USD 5 billion in 2025. This 127% increase highlights Baku’s commitment to maintaining military superiority. Armenia’s defense spending reflects a determined, constrained response to persistent military threats. Its planned 252% budget increase from 2021 to 2025 (USD 1.7 billion) indicates a significant shift in priorities.  Yet, Armenia’s total defense allocation remains a fraction of Azerbaijan’s. Yerevan allocated  USD 745 million in 2020 (including expenses related to the  Second Karabakh War), USD 673 million in 2021, US D820 million in 2022, US D1.3 billion in 2023, and USD 1.4 billion in 2024. Armenia’s defense budget focuses on its armed forces, while Azerbaijan’s includes additional allocations for various institutions. Of Azerbaijan’s USD 5 billion defense budget for 2025, USD 1.57 billion is designated for the armed forces, USD 275 million for national security, USD 318 million for border service, and USD 2.7 billion for “other defense and national security-related activities.” Much of this latter category funds arms procurement, raising Azerbaijan’s core defense budget to approximately $4.3 billion. Notably, some of these expenditures, such as naval costs, are unrelated to the conflict with Armenia. Initially, Azerbaijan planned minimal growth in its 2025 defense budget due to a stagnating economy. However, Armenia’s 20% increase in its defense budget for 2025 prompted Baku to allocate an additional USD 1 billion from its State Oil Fund to maintain its military advantage. For example, Azerbaijan’s planned procurement spending for 2025 surpasses the total value of Armenia’s defense acquisitions, estimated at around USD 2 billion since late 2022. These developments highlight Azerbaijan’s determination to intensify its militarization and sustain its strategic advantage over Armenia, despite Armenia’s constructive efforts to establish peace, as evidenced by its willingness to make concessions and its officials’ repeated public statements to foster reconciliation. Procurement and Alliances Beyond budget figures, it is critical to examine developments in military procurement, alliances, and cooperation within the armed forces of both countries. Since the 2020 war, Azerbaijan has pursued extensive arms procurement from Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, Serbia, and Slovakia. Publicly known acquisitions include 48 155-mm Nora B-52NG self-propelled guns (SPG) from Serbia for USD339 million, 70 155-mm Dita SPGs from Slovakia, Pakistani JF-17 jet fighters for USD1.6 billion, Turkish Akinci heavy combat drones, and Barak MX air defense systems from Israel for USD1.2 billion. Additionally, Azerbaijan has discreetly acquired other military equipment from Israel, modernized its aviation capabilities with Italian C-27J Spartan military transport aircraft, and upgraded its Su-25 attack aircraft in Turkey to enable the use of guided bombs and missiles. Turkey continues to conduct military drills with Azerbaijan, train its forces, and support its stance regarding Armenia. It ties progress in the Yerevan-Ankara normalization process to peace negotiations between Baku and Yerevan. Azerbaijan also held joint drills with Iran, another Armenian neighbor country.   Armenia, seeking to rebuild its military capacity after the 2020 defeat, initially turned to its treaty ally, Russia. However, most weapons procured under August 2021 contracts were never delivered.  Following Azerbaijani incursions into Armenian territory in 2021 and 2022, Yerevan distanced itself from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and Russia, shifting its focus to India and France while expanding its security cooperation with the United States and the European Union. Armenia is now undertaking the most significant procurement effort in its history, estimated at USD 2 billion. Recent contracts with India include acquisitions of 155-mm ATAGS towed guns, 72 155-mm MARG self-propelled guns (SPG), Pinaka multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS), Akash surface-to-air missiles (SAM), Zen anti-drone systems, Konkurs-M anti-tank missiles, small arms, and ammunition. In 2024, Armenian and Indian defense officials signed a training and institutional collaboration cooperation agreement. Armenia has procured three GM-200 radars, 50 Bastion armored vehicles, 36 155-mm Cesar SPGs, small arms, and other equipment from France. France and the United States also support Armenia’s defense reforms. Meanwhile, Yerevan has invested significant resources in building heavy fortifications along its borders—a strategy unlikely to reflect offensive intentions given Armenia’s limited resources. Conclusion Azerbaijan, following its 2020 victory and the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023, continues its militarization efforts to maintain a decisive military advantage over Armenia. Despite significantly higher defense spending, Baku frequently accuses Armenia of militarization

Armenia vs. Azerbaijan: Defense Budgets, Alliances, and the Illusion of Peace Read More »

The Syria Fiasco As Seen From Moscow

The Commentary was originally published on Carnegie Endowment website. The outcome of the events that have reshaped Syria was a surprise to many, including Russia. Moscow was unprepared for such a scenario, and its actions were largely reactive. The result was a significant failure in Russia’s Middle Eastern policy, but not a strategic defeat. Russia’s primary focus remains defeating the West in Ukraine, which is essential for its security and status as a great power. If Russia succeeds in doing so, it could regain influence in other regions, including Syria and the Middle East. Until then, the Russians will likely strive to limit their losses, maintain access to the Mediterranean, and remain relevant on the international stage, until they achieve victory in Ukraine. Russia’s presence in Syria provided it with many advantages. First, the success of its military operations in 2015–2024 and its footprint on Syrian territory cemented Russia’s great-power status, which had two stated pillars: success in the fight against international terrorism and the presence of military bases in the “far abroad,” beyond the traditional Russian sphere of interest along its borders. The Syrian platform in the Eastern Mediterranean served an important logistical function, among them providing access to Russian assets in Africa. Other advantages were that Russia gained credibility as a mediator, a role it could potentially play elsewhere in the region. It also gained leverage in negotiations with Iran and Türkiye over the region. Russian sway in Syria allowed Moscow to block potential natural gas pipeline projects from the Persian Gulf to Europe, which could circumvent Russia. And its presence allowed it to contain terrorism on its “far frontiers.” With Bashar al-Assad’s downfall, many of the stated advantages Russia enjoyed were either lost or reduced. Moscow’s immediate efforts have been focused on averting a complete disaster. This began with extricating Assad from Syria, which demonstrated the Russian willingness and ability to guarantee the safety of its ally. Providing a safe haven to the ousted president indicated that, despite its setbacks, Moscow showed a willingness to fulfill its commitments to Syria’s political elite, even if this proves to be an irritant in its relationship with the new Syrian government. Second, Moscow avoided a complete humiliation, despite a serious loss in image and its failure to provide security. It reached agreements to safeguard the security of its diplomatic staff of its diplomatic staff and cut back military personnel among Russian forces in Syria. The advancing factions did not damage Russian military bases (particularly in Tartous and Hmeimim). To a lesser extent, this allowed Moscow to save face as much as possible in a context of failure. Additionally, from Moscow’s perspective, what happened in Syria was primarily a defeat for its Syrian allies, rather than for Russia. When weakened, the Russians tend to shift the blame onto others. Their calculation is that a victory in Ukraine is possible in the short term, therefore defeats elsewhere will eventually fade, much as the reputational damage from the United States’ withdrawal in Afghanistan did. Because defeating the West in Ukraine is the main strategic objective that will guarantee Russia’s security, existence, and long-term status as a great power, losses in other regions are viewed as secondary. For instance, a year ago in the South Caucasus, Russia withdrew its peacekeepers following Azerbaijan’s offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh and the subsequent forced displacement of the local Armenian population. That was not to Moscow’s liking, yet it did not divert resources to the Caucasus. From the Russian viewpoint, Ukraine is the main arena where it concentrates its resources and where the West seeks to impose a decisive defeat on Russia. Therefore, victory there is essential for restoring Russia’s position in the Middle East and the post-Soviet sphere. With respect to Russia’s priorities in Syria, beyond damage control and risk mitigation, Russia has a number of concerns. One immediate concern is the management of terrorist threats. Various groups that fought the Assad regime and were opponents of Moscow included citizens of Russia and its neighboring states. Moscow used to regard Syria as a magnet that attracted radical elements, allowing it to distance perceived terrorist threats from its own borders. Today, it no longer has that option. Therefore, two alternatives exist: to negotiate with the anti-Russian groups or to focus on international counterterrorism cooperation. With regard to Syria’s role as a stepping stone to Africa, Moscow will seek alternative entry points to the continent in order to maintain its presence. The most suitable option is Libya. In eastern Libya, Moscow has intensified its presence since the spring of 2024, including transferring arms and equipment from Syria. Libya’s access to the Mediterranean and its land borders with African countries give it an advantage over other nations. However, the country’s unstable military situation could again jeopardize Russian positions down the road. At the same time, Russia’s dependence on Türkiye for logistical opportunities will continue to grow. Access to Libya will remain possible only through the Turkish-controlled Dardanelles and the Bosphorus. While Russia may focus more on Africa, it will likely try to preserve its presence in Syria. The outcome will depend on agreements between Ankara and Moscow. One condition for retaining Russian military bases in Syria could be that they not be used against any party inside the country, but instead serve logistical purposes, in return for adjustments to Moscow’s position toward the new Syrian authorities. In the aftermath of the Assad regime’s collapse, the Syrian conflict has entered a distinctly different phase. Russia’s direct involvement is expected to remain minimal as it awaits the emergence of a more stable balance of power among the factions involved. Once stability is achieved, Moscow may facilitate political dialogue, especially as its diplomacy has shown Russia’s readiness to negotiate with groups it previously labeled terrorists or targeted during the conflict, demonstrating flexibility in pursuit of its strategic goals. A key driver of Russian engagement could be the need to provide external stabilization, particularly if the United States withdraws its forces entirely from Syria, as was contemplated during Donald Trump’s previous term in office. Russia

The Syria Fiasco As Seen From Moscow Read More »

Leaving the ‘Post-Soviet’ Behind: Redefining Armenia’s Deterrence Strategy

The Commentary was originally published on RUSI website. Armenia is redefining its security strategy, diversifying its alliances and boosting military capacity as shifting geopolitics expose the limits of Russian-backed guarantees. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, newly independent Armenia became one of Russia’s closest allies, joining the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and aligning its economic integration with Moscow. Armenia’s alignment was based on the understanding that Russia would act as its security guarantor against hostile neighbours. The need for fundamental changes to Yerevan’s deterrence strategy became apparent with the shift in regional geopolitics following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War and the global changes exacerbated by the Russo-Ukrainian War. Today, Armenia is actively pursuing a deterrence strategy that balances the realities of its geography with an evolving world order. Leaving the Post-Soviet Security Architecture Behind  After gaining independence from the Soviet Union, Armenia’s foreign and security policies closely aligned with Russia. However, the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, Azerbaijani incursions into Armenian territory in 2021 and 2022, and the military takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan – coupled with the inaction of the Russian peacekeeping mission – exposed the risks associated with Armenia’s overdependence on Russia and the CSTO for its security. While Russia may have had its reasons to avoid fulfilling its security guarantees, such as its focus on Ukraine and increasing economic ties with Azerbaijan and Turkey, these events underscored the fact that the Russia-dominated security framework was no longer reliable and that Armenia’s military capabilities were insufficient. Recognising that reliance on a single security partner poses substantial risks – a reality also felt by other European countries – Armenia has begun to intensify its engagement with a broader range of external powers and to strengthen its military capacity. Towards a New Two-Pronged Deterrence Strategy Armenia’s defence expenditure doubled between 2022 and 2024, with $1.7 billion earmarked for 2025. This marked increase follows the severe setbacks faced by the Armenian Army in 2020 and subsequent years, stemming from chronic underfunding and its inability to respond to Azerbaijan’s aggressions adequately. The risk of military escalation remains significant, even after the September 2023 military takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh, the coveted enclave that was once an autonomous oblast inside Soviet Azerbaijan with a heavy majority of Armenians, and despite the ongoing peace negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Notably, in both 2021 and 2022, Azerbaijan attacked Armenia amid similar negotiations. While Baku has now achieved its long-held ambition of ‘liberating Karabakh’, peace remains elusive, with Azerbaijan’s consistent threats of force and its state-driven agenda of reclaiming ‘Western Azerbaijan’ casting doubt on its willingness to foster peaceful relations. Recognising that reliance on a single security partner poses substantial risks, Armenia has begun to intensify its engagement with a broader range of external powers and to strengthen its military capacity To effectively bolster its armed forces as part of a two-pronged strategy to strengthen its deterrence, Armenia must develop a robust strategy for military enhancement, accelerate training and education, increase procurement and further develop its domestic defence sector. The government is already actively addressing these areas, supported by a diversified array of security partners. In the past two years, Armenia has notably pivoted to new security alliances, opting for a EU civilian monitoring mission along its border with Azerbaijan instead of the CSTO’s alternative. The Armenian Armed Forces have transitioned procurement and training activities towards new partners, made possible by substantial economic growth since 2022. Ironically, this growth has been partly driven by an influx of Russian immigrants and businesses – including prominent Western companies – fleeing Russia, along with a heightened demand for Armenian exports. These factors, coupled with Western sanctions on Moscow, have created additional income streams that have allowed Armenia to fund a security framework that no longer relies solely on Russian guarantees, although economic dependence on Russia has deepened at the same time. Armenia’s bolstered defence budget has enabled Yerevan to secure contracts with India worth more than $1.5 billion in 2022–2023 and with France totalling at least $250 million in 2023–2024 (APRI Armenia estimate, based on open-source data on different contracts). Security partnerships with these countries include deploying French military instructors and a permanent French adviser within the Armenian Ministry of Defence, as well as training initiatives led by India.  Concurrently, Armenia maintains positive relations with Iran, which – along with Georgia – shares one of Armenia’s two open borders (the others, with Turkey and Azerbaijan, remain closed). Relations with Iran are important for Armenia’s security, with Tehran openly supporting Armenia’s territorial integrity. Additionally, some military equipment from India reaches Armenia via Iran.  Importantly, if the war in Ukraine concludes – a possibility that may increase with Donald Trump’s return to office – Russia may refocus its attention on the South Caucasus. Under such delicate circumstances, Yerevan must balance geographical and geopolitical realities to shape a viable deterrence strategy. In light of geopolitical shifts and the reality of its geography, Armenia requires a long-term economic reconfiguration to avoid overreliance on a single partner and underinvestment in its resources Armenia’s new deterrence strategy must be based on realistic diversification, which includes an array of partners including those mentioned above and Russia. While the Russian base in Gyumri remains, its presence provides – rightly or wrongly – a perceived protection against Turkish involvement in a renewed Armenia–Azerbaijan conflict. Without stronger guarantees from other security partners, a more radical departure from this emerging, diversified architecture can only occur if regional tensions decrease significantly, such as through a mutually acceptable peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan or normalisation of relations with Turkey. However, given current political trends, this scenario appears unlikely in the short term. Economic Dependencies: A Different Landscape In the economic sphere, Armenia’s dependency on Russia is more pronounced. Russia has long-term concessions in Armenia’s strategic sectors, including railways, nuclear power, natural gas distribution and wheat. For Russia, since 2022, economic relations have become the preferred instrument for maintaining its influence in the region. While Armenia has complied with Western sanctions against Russia and banned exports in categorised products, its Eurasian Economic Union membership has been advantageous. In light of geopolitical shifts and the reality of its geography, Armenia requires a long-term economic reconfiguration to avoid overreliance on a single partner and underinvestment in its

Leaving the ‘Post-Soviet’ Behind: Redefining Armenia’s Deterrence Strategy Read More »

Escaping Russia’s Backyard: Armenia’s Strategic Defense Shift

The article was originally published on War on the Rocks. Today, Armenia is no longer considered a “backyard of Russia,” as it has been for the last three decades. As a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, Armenia’s defense and security policies are now shifting. This strategic realignment presents a historic opportunity for Armenia to redefine its geopolitical role, moving away from Moscow’s sphere of influence and toward Western allies. In light of this shift, the United States and the European Union should provide Armenia with enhanced military support, thereby contributing to regional stability in the South Caucasus. By doing so, Western powers can prevent Russia from regaining control and further challenge Azerbaijan’s unilateral military pressure. Such support would also facilitate Armenia’s military reforms and ensure it becomes a self-sufficient actor in regional security. Past Purchases Armenia’s active arms procurement began in 2016, following its Four-Day War with Azerbaijan. This conflict, during which Baku demonstrated military superiority by introducing Israeli-made loitering munitions and surveillance drones, prompted Yerevan to sign a contract with its then-strategic ally, Moscow. As a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, Armenia could purchase arms at domestic prices, and the military’s alignment with Russian standards simplified equipment integration. Moscow, in a show of support, extended a $200 million loan, enabling Armenia to acquire BM-30 Smerch and TOS-1A Solntsepek multiple-launch rocket systems, Igla-S man-portable air defense systems, the Avtobaza-M electronic intelligence system, and other equipment.  Armenia’s strategic efforts to strengthen its defense capabilities are evident in its procurement of Iskander-E missile systems from Russia outside the aforementioned credit line. Before the 2020 war, Armenia also procured four Su-30SM fighters, though they lacked modern airborne munitions. Another key acquisition before the war was the Tor-M2KM air defense systems. The logic behind these procurements was to establish deterrence against large-scale escalation. Between 2010 and 2020, in addition to arms from Russia, Armenia received 35 Osa air defense systems from Jordan and signed a $40 million contract with India for four modern Swathi counter-artillery radars, delivered in 2021. Between 2011 and 2020, Russia accounted for 94 percent of Armenia’s imports of major arms.  Consequences of War The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020 significantly altered the regional balance of power. Armenia suffered major losses that, according to the open-source Oryx blog, included 255 tanks, 71 infantry fighting vehicles, 250 towed artillery pieces, 29 self-propelled artillery units, 84 multiple-launch rocket systems, and 39 air defense systems (including one S-300 battalion and two Tor-M2KM units), as well as hundreds of other pieces of equipment. Despite serious evidence that these numbers were overstated, Armenia’s armed forces clearly suffered a loss of capacity.  As a result of the war, the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which is considered a disputed territory between Armenia and Azerbaijan, lost 70 percent of the territory it had controlled since 1994, and Russian peacekeepers were deployed in the remaining area. Yerevan requested that Moscow establish military outposts on the newly created Armenia-Azerbaijan border, leaving Yerevan vulnerable and no longer the security guarantor of Nagorno-Karabakh. Based on the Nov. 10, 2020 statement, the new status quo foresees Armenia providing communications through its territory for Azerbaijan. This is Baku’s next strategic goal, supported by Turkey: to get the so-called “Zangezur corridor,” a direct land connection to its exclave through Armenian territory, controlled by Russian FSB border troops. Azerbaijan formalized a strategic alliance with Turkey, whose command-level involvement played a decisive role in the outcome of the 2020 war. In June 2021, Baku and Ankara signed the Shusha Declaration, a defense pact that includes provisions for mutual assistance in the event of an attack on either party. One of their goals is to open a land route through Armenian territory, the so-called Zangezur corridor. Azerbaijan, leveraging its military, economic, and political superiority, continued to pressure Armenia into making unilateral concessions, seizing Armenian territories during escalations in 2021, gaining strategic heights along the border during intense two-day fighting in September 2022, and later in 2024 conducting “delimitation and demarcation” of a portion of the Armenia–Azerbaijan border in Tavush under military pressure and in Azerbaijan’s favor.  The recent escalations exposed the ineffectiveness of Russia’s security mechanisms within the Collective Security Treaty Organization. While the 2020 war fell outside the organization’s responsibility, later attacks did not, as they directly targeted Armenia. Armenia gradually distanced itself from the Collective Security Treaty Organization, freezing its membership, and instead opted for an E.U. monitoring mission, which currently consists of 209 personnel with a mandate until February 2025. The Search for New Markets The revision of the military-political agreements between Armenia and Russia stems not only from the diminishing deterrent effect of their alliance but also from the failure to deliver arms and military equipment under existing contracts. In August 2021, Armenia and Russia signed a new arms supply deal in Moscow, though its worth and the detail of its terms were undisclosed. In 2023, the head of the Armenian parliamentary commission on defense, Andranik Kocharyan, revealed that the contract was worth $400 million. Discussions about Russian arms deliveries intensified after the autumn 2022 attack on Armenia. A year later, in November 2023, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated that Armenia had paid Russia for weapons but never received them. Various solutions were proposed, including using the funds already paid to write off part of Armenia’s debt. However, these proposals did not address the core issue: Armenia remained under military pressure from Azerbaijan without receiving the arms it had paid for. The situation worsened with the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian War, prompting Armenia to explore other arms markets. This turn of events highlights the urgent need for Armenia to secure alternative military supplies to withstand Azerbaijani pressure. India Beginning in 2022, India became the largest exporter of military equipment to Armenia. According to our estimates, based on media leaks, the current package of contracts could exceed $1.5 billion. The order includes such systems as the Pinaka multiple-launch rocket system for $245 million, 72 155-millimeter MARG-155 self-propelled guns, 90 155-millimeter advanced towed artillery gun systems for $155 million, Akash surface-to-air missiles for $720 million, Zen anti-drone systems for $41 million, license-produced Konkurs-M anti-tank missiles, and various other munitions and equipment. In April 2024, it was reported that India would send its first

Escaping Russia’s Backyard: Armenia’s Strategic Defense Shift Read More »

Unpacking Russia’s land warfare lessons from Ukraine

The article was originally published on European Security & Defence. More than two and a half years into the Russo-Ukrainian War, both nations have endured significant human losses while making minimal territorial gains. The conflict has evolved considerably, though neither Russia nor Ukraine are fighting as they did at the war’s outset in 2022. A noticeable shift toward innovative warfare and technology is evident. Ukraine has taken the lead in implementing and practically applying these innovations, while Russia is also striving to adapt, particularly in organisational and technological areas. This is the first large-scale military conflict in recent decades involving two relatively well-equipped regular armies of relatively comparable technological capabilities. The only conflict of similar magnitude and characteristics in recent history was the Iran–Iraq War of 1980–1988. Military specialists studied this conflict extensively, and experts’ interest in such confrontations and preparations diminished over time as the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War marked the decline in the relevance of confrontations between conventional armies. In subsequent years, military threats took on a different character. The last war involving the Soviet Union was the War in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, fought by the Limited Contingent of Soviet Forces against irregular Afghan mujahideen guerrilla formations. Later, the Russian Army engaged in two ‘internal wars’ in the North Caucasus, also against semi-guerrilla rebel groups. These experiences and those of various peacekeeping missions shaped a new vision of future military conflicts. In the Russian school of military thinking and beyond, the prevailing view became that future wars would involve professional army units equipped with high-tech weaponry, communications, and intelligence systems, combating lightly armed militias, religious extremists, and transnational criminal organisations. The first conflict involving the Russian Armed Forces against a regular army, albeit minor, was the brief war with Georgia in August 2008, often called the ‘five-day war’, This conflict unexpectedly exposed several deficiencies within the Russian Armed Forces; notably, it became clear that their communication systems were outdated. Georgian forces quickly intercepted Russian communications, leaving the Russian troops highly vulnerable to the Georgian Army’s electronic warfare capabilities. In many instances, civilian mobile networks were used to manage troop movements. Military personnel of the Russian Armed Forces, particularly the 58th Army, were poorly prepared; the main contingent consisted of conscripts without proper training. Technical issues were also apparent; a large amount of equipment broke down on the march, even before combat operations began. Logistics and rear support were disorganised, and there was a noticeable lack of effective command, control, and coordination among the forces. The situational awareness at all levels of headquarters was also weak. Modern unmanned systems were almost entirely absent, and intelligence agencies’ overall performance was inadequate. Open sources indicate that the Russian forces deployed only one unmanned complex, the Pchela. Additionally, Russia’s Zoopark-1 artillery counter-battery radar systems were missing, and forward units lacked forward air controllers. It was the Russian invasion force’s numerical superiority over the Georgian Army that offset its shortcomings. The total strength of the 58th Army, along with attached airborne units, air defence forces, and other units and subunits, reportedly reached 70,000 personnel, compared to the Georgian Army’s 20,000 troops. After 2008, the Russian Armed Forces underwent extensive reforms, which, according to official statements at the time, aimed to address the deficiencies revealed during the war in Georgia. The state defence order framework approved the procurement of new weapons, military equipment, and upgraded intelligence and communication systems. Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov’s reforms in 2008–2012 focused on creating a high-tech, mobile professional army equipped for rapid local operations. The Sozvezdie Unified Tactical Level Command and Control System (ESU TZ; also called ‘the Sozvezdie system’) was developed to improve situational awareness at tactical-level headquarters, optimise decision-making cycles, and enhance unit coordination. Russian media and official sources frequently claimed that the Russian Army was becoming more assertive and qualitatively improving year on year. These reforms positioned Russia for 2014, when, following the Ukrainian Maidan Revolution, it occupied the Crimean Peninsula and parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Moscow successfully operated with Special Operations Forces units and several private military companies (PMCs). Contributing factors to their success included political uncertainty within Ukrainian society, weak control over the armed forces and state institutions by the new Kyiv authorities, the element of surprise, and the pro-Russian orientation of some senior Ukrainian security officials. The near absence of a functional army in Ukraine further facilitated Russian advances into the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where various Ukrainian volunteer battalions formed the core of resistance against Russian aggression. The year 2014 also marked a turning point in Ukraine’s approach to national security. In response to the conflict in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, Kyiv declared the start of the Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) and began restructuring its nearly derelict army. The Russians’ use of irregular warfare tactics, including limited military actions involving local populations and regular troops disguised as ‘local militia’, triggered Ukraine to implement several measures to rebuild its armed forces. Some military units were restructured and reformed, and the National Guard of Ukraine was established, incorporating many volunteer battalions formed in 2014. A law on territorial defence was passed, leading to the formation of the Territorial Defence Forces. With assistance from Western allies, personnel training programmes were initiated, and consultations on military reforms were conducted. The nationwide volunteer movement significantly influenced the new Ukrainian Army’s training and equipment; volunteers organised personnel and reserve training, conducted research and development in various technical fields, and more. Lessons of the Russo-Ukrainian War A new phase of the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine began on 24 February 2022 with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The rapid advance of Russian troop groupings in various directions, occupying large expanses of territory with little resistance, at the time led many experts to expect that Ukraine’s military defeat was imminent. However, the fundamental characteristics of the Russian Army had remained largely unchanged since 2008. Widespread breakdowns of military equipment marked the early days of the Russian

Unpacking Russia’s land warfare lessons from Ukraine Read More »

Nagorno-Karabakh Fallout: One Year After

In September 2023, President Ilham Aliyev unleashed Azerbaijani forces on the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic following a nine-month blockade. The speed and scale of the population exodus marked a dark chapter for the region and gave Armenians a tragic sense of déja vu. September 2024 marks one year after the ethnic cleansing of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, two years since Azerbaijan’s deadliest incursions into Armenia, and four years of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. In this analysis, APRI Armenia reflects on the events of the past year and their implications for Armenia’s security and regional stability. It proposes ways to move beyond the current limbo of “no peace, no war.” Where We Are Today Today, the situation remains unresolved. Many in the international community expected that the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict by force would pave the way for faster peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan, but this expectation has proven misguided. Despite Armenia’s willingness to engage constructively in peace talks, Azerbaijan has, throughout the year, added new preconditions to peace, continually shifting the goalposts for any genuine peace agreement. As of September 2024, Azerbaijan has articulated eight demands, two of which have been presented by Baku as prerequisites for signing any peace agreement: At the time of writing, there has not been any serious military escalation since September 2023. Armenia has created a delicate deterrence balance with the support of its partners. The patrolling activities of the European Mission in Armenia (EUMA) along the Armenian-Azerbaijani border have contributed to this balance, as have repeated statements by Iranian officials (including Abbas Araghchi, Minister of Foreign Affairs) asserting that Iran would not tolerate any changes to borders. Additionally, Armenia has found new partners in India and France to bolster its military capacity and help deter Azerbaijan in the long run. Yerevan’s concession of villages in the Tavush region in March–April 2024, made under the threat of force, may have also contributed to containing active military escalation.  The December 2023 bilateral statement enabled the release of 32 Armenian prisoners of war (while 23 remain captive) and made Baku the default host of the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP29). The demarcation and delimitation commissions, directed by Armenian Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan and Azerbaijani Deputy Prime Minister Shahin Mustafayev, continued their work in 2024. Most recently, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated that the parties have agreed on 13 of the 17 articles constituting the current peace agreement, with a partial agreement on three others. Azerbaijan’s President Aliyev announced that 80 percent of an agreement had been finalized.   Of the 100,632 Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians who crossed the Lachin corridor in September 2023, 10,308 have left Armenia as of June. Former representatives of the self-proclaimed government estimate the number to be closer to 20,000. Many who remain in Armenia reportedly face poor social and economic prospects. The forced takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan has created further hardship and uncertainties, compounded by the lack of public statements from the officials of the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, now residing in Armenia, and the Armenian government’s silence on the consequences of the forced displacement. With the concession of the Tavush villages that led to 12.6 kilometers being redefined between Armenia and Azerbaijan also came short-lived unrest, indicating some dissatisfaction among the Armenian people and a degree of civic disengagement. A paradox has emerged in the European Union’s and United States’ engagement in conflict resolution. If the EU and the US have initially played an active role as facilitators, this has not yielded the intended results. Aliyev has disengaged from the Brussels format and has undertaken performative diplomacy with the US. No sanctions have been imposed on Azerbaijan for its use of force and the ethnic cleansing it conducted. Neither has Azerbaijan’s occupation of approximately 200 square kilometers of Armenian sovereign territory been condemned. At the same time, the US and the EU continue to engage more closely with Armenia. The diplomatic dialogue is in full force, with the New Partnership Agenda between the EU and Armenia and the new Strategic Partnership Commission between the US and Armenia. The US and EU have also provided humanitarian aid to Armenia to support the refugee crisis. Overall, 2024 has also been an important litmus test for the West and Russia in determining the effectiveness of their diplomatic efforts to promote regional stability.   Is an Agreement Coming? A framework agreement could be signed by November 2024, before or during the 29th session of COP29, given the expectations set by the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides and vocal encouragement by the US and EU to finalize a deal by November. Importantly, if a document is signed, it will likely be a framework agreement, as indicated by statements from Armenia and Azerbaijan. A framework agreement would typically include generic statements of nonaggression and mutual respect for territorial integrity, leaving the core issues—such as restoration of communications and border delimitation—for future negotiations.  Others, including APRI Armenia researchers, doubt a framework agreement will materialize by COP29. Azerbaijan has been adamant that nothing will be signed until Armenia changes its constitution and other laws and supports the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group—a position President Aliyev reiterated during his most recent call with US Secretary of State Blinken. The Armenian government has explained that these constitutional changes are a domestic issue requiring a proper democratic process, which cannot be completed before 2027. In any case, the long-term stabilizing effect of a framework agreement remains to be determined, as such agreements typically fail to address the core issues driving the conflict, merely postponing them and leaving room for further bellicose maneuvers.  The current “no war, no peace” situation is daunting, raising questions about how Azerbaijan will respond to the upcoming Georgian and US elections and whether—or indeed when—it will test red lines by using military means to achieve its political objectives.  As in spring 2024, Azerbaijan may again demand “the return of the Azerbaijani enclaves” of Tigranashen, Sofulu, Barkhudarlu, and Verin Voskepar, claiming that its president’s patience has reached its limit and threatening a new military offensive. Another option, if Armenia’s current deterrence configuration fails, could be the launch of a military offensive through Armenia’s Vayots Dzor or Syunik regions. Baku could use the strategic positions it occupies to launch an attack on

Nagorno-Karabakh Fallout: One Year After Read More »

Armenia and Azerbaijan – What Happens Next?

Armenia and Azerbaijan – What Happens Next?

19 September 2023 marked the start another active military conflict, this time in Nagorno-Karabakh: between the local Armenian troops and Azerbaijan. Despite lasting only one day, the conflict led to 412 official causalities for both sides and according to the Armenian Government has led to ethnic cleansing – with practically the entire Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh, numbering over 100,000, fleeing from the disputed region to Armenia in the days following the clash. The one-day war also surprisingly resulted in relatively high causalities for both sides. Military Imbalance Eroding the Status Quo Nagorno-Karabakh started to become a conflict region in 1988, when the local Armenian population started to claim the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous region from Azerbaijan and demanded to join Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR). This process triggered the First Nagorno-Karabakh War of 1992-1994, and ended with defeat of Azerbaijan, which lost control not only over the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous region, but also of seven ex-Azerbaijani SSR regions around Karabakh, most of which provided a land connection with Armenia, which Karabakh itself lacked. A ceasefire was brokered by Russia, but it never was completely fulfilled. Peace negotiations were mediated by the Minsk OSCE Troika (France, Russia and the USA) for many years without result and continued against the background of continuous violations of the ceasefire along the line of contact in Karabakh and even at the Armenia-Azerbaijan border. The status quo started to deteriorate in April 2016, when the first large-scale hostilities after 1994 started and result – of 1992-1994, and ended with defeat of Azerbaijan, which lost control not only over the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous region, but also of seven ex-Azerbaijani SSR regions around Karabakh, most of which provided a land connection with Armenia, which Karabakh itself lacked. A ceasefire was brokered by Russia, but it never was completely fulfilled. Peace negotiations were mediated by the Minsk OSCE Troika (France, Russia and the USA) for many years without result and continued against the background of continuous violations of the ceasefire along the line of contact in Karabakh and even at the Armenia-Azerbaijan border. The status quo started to deteriorate in April 2016, when the first large-scale hostilities after 1994 started and resulted in small gains on the line of contact for Azerbaijan. This was the result of the military approach chosen by Baku, which became a much wealthier country after 2005, as it began to export of large volumes of fossil fuels amid higher oil prices. This would resulted in changing the military balance between the two countries’ armed forces, since the Azerbaijani defence budget was several times larger than Armenia’s. Baku enacted the largescale procurement of tanks, artillery, armoured vehicles, air defence assets, combat aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Israel and Turkey starting from around 2005. A major shift occurred in 2020, during the 44-day Second Nagorno-Karabakh war, where Azerbaijani troops managed to gain a military victory. The 2020 war demonstrated some of the newest components of modern warfare, including the massed use of combat UAVs such as the Bayraktar TB2, and ISR UAVs in combination with artillery and loitering munitions. Azerbaijani Armed Forces were able to conduct a suppression of air defence (SEAD) operation almost without use of manned aviation, relying on the coordinated actions of uncrewed vehicles. Such success was reinforced with a more modern and creative approach in land warfare: the first failed attempts to undertake a ‘classical’ offensive with tanks and armoured vehicles were replaced with offensives by lighter mobile troops, which were able to disorganise the defending Armenian forces. Many of these modern approaches were taught to Azerbaijani Armed Forces by high-ranking Turkish officers, which Armenia has stated were actively involved in developing and conduction the operation. At the same time, Russian support to Armenia was very limited, despite the two countries being allies. The war resulted in the Trilateral Statement, made by leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia. According to statement, Azerbaijan gained control over territory of seven regions around Nagorno-Karabakh along with Shushi and Hadrut cities which were part of Karabakh, while Russia established a 1,960 personnel-strong peacekeeping mission which became security guarantor for local Armenians and was in charge of guarding the Lachin corridor – the only road connecting Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia proper. Also, the Statement outlined some bases for peace negotiations, including the exchange of POWs, opening of the transport communications between countries, and various others. This postwar period was stable for only a few months, and in May 2021 Azerbaijan started to re-assert military pressure – now also directly on Armenia, as well as occupying border territories during limited operations. The most large-scale escalation happened on September 12- 13, during which the intensity of hostilities was comparable to Second Karabakh war. Azerbaijani troops occupied more than 140 km2 of Armenian territory and conducted artillery and UAV strikes deep into Armenian territory, destroying some air defence assets and damaging Armenian Armed Forces bases. According to official sources, Armenia lost 202 and Azerbaijan lost 80 servicemen in just two days – more than during the 2016 four-day war in Nagorno-Karabakh. These hostilities showed that the Armenian Armed Forces were still not ready to organise an effective defence against Azerbaijan, especially in the sphere of air defence. As a result of the Azerbaijani attack, Armenia negotiated an EU monitoring mission to the border, which was established for 2 years and could be prolonged further. Against the background of direct Armenia-Azerbaijan tension, Baku also started to put pressure on NagornoKarabakh, despite the existence of the Russian peacekeeping mission and security guarantees. The peacekeepers were shown to be very passive, especially after the beginning of Russo-Ukrainian war, which took a much higher priority for Russian military resource dedication, as well as limited general interest to the region. After several local attacks by Azerbaijani troops, which resulted in almost no reaction from the Russians, Baku started a blockade of NagornoKarabakh by blocking the Lachin corridor in December 2022. This also did not lead to any real reaction from Russia and

Armenia and Azerbaijan – What Happens Next? Read More »

Rewriting Russia’s Pursuits in the Middle East​

In an interview with Carnegie Middle East Center, Leonid Nersisyan examines Moscow’s stakes in the Levant and North Africa in light of the stalemated war in Ukraine. Leonid Nersisyan is a defense analyst focusing on the foreign and military policy of Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States region. He also follows the defense industry in general, as well as armed conflict and arms control. Nersisyan is a research fellow at the Applied Policy Research Institute of Armenia and a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom. Diwan interviewed Nersisyan in July to get his perspective on how the Ukraine war and its repercussions have affected Russia’s defense posture in the Middle East. Armenak Tokmajyan: We are more than a year into the Ukraine conflict and the end doesn’t seem to be near. How has the conflict impacted Russia’s military presence abroad, especially in the Middle East? Leonid Nersisyan: The Russo-Ukrainian war began affecting Russia’s military presence abroad after its initial plans for a blitzkrieg failed and the conflict was transformed into a protracted war of attrition. It is no secret that most of the best units of the Wagner mercenary group were withdrawn from Syria, Libya, and various African countries, leaving behind a minimal presence. These redeployed units, with their experienced commanders, became the matrix for growth of the Wagner group in Ukraine, which at the time of the infamous “Bakhmut meatgrinder” earlier this year had up to 50,000 personnel. Aside from Wagner personnel, there is another major trend visible related to Russian troops and bases abroad. The best officers and contractor servicemen have been redeployed to Ukraine, while less capable and wounded personnel, as well as conscripts, are filling up their places in foreign bases. At the same time, the equipment in these foreign bases remains almost intact, as their numbers are in general irrelevant for the scale of hostilities in Ukraine. For example, withdrawing aircraft from the Hmeimim airbase in Syria (where there are only six multirole fighters, sixteen frontline bombers, sixteen military helicopters, etc.) will not change much on the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield, while doing so will risk damaging Russian interest in Middle East. It’s significant that when it comes to Syria, there is even growing interest from Moscow in pursuing maintenance and refueling operations at the Tartous naval base, as Turkey is limiting usage of the Bosporus in wartime for Russian combat ships. That would allow Russia to keep part of its fleet in Mediterranean. Russia’s interest in maintaining troops in foreign countries is not waning. While the Russian Defense Ministry has redeployed contractors and professional peacekeepers from Nagorno-Karabakh and Transdniestria to Ukraine, Russia does not seem to be preparing to abandon these missions. That said, sources suggest that the Nagorno-Karabakh peacekeeping mission is some 15 percent understaffed because of the conflict in Ukraine. Nonetheless, in April 2023, the Russian State Duma approved a new bill that allowed conscripts to be part of peacekeeping missions abroad. Now Moscow can man these missions with conscripts. AT: In light of Wagner’s failed rebellion in Russia and Yevgeny Prigozhin’s departure to Belarus, how do you see the mercenary group’s future? Also, how do you think this new situation will impact Wagner’s presence abroad, especially in the Middle East and North Africa? LN: It’s obvious, that Wagner won’t receive the major state contracts from Russia that it received during the Russian-Ukrainian war. Moreover, there have been suggestions the Russian Foreign Ministry is actively trying to push Wagner troops out of the countries where they have a presence. Some have even speculated that Wagner may possibly have lost some trust from its Libyan and Syrian clients. At the same time, information about a meeting that took place on June 29 between Prigozhin and Wagner commanders with Russian President Vladimir Putin shows there is still potential for Wagner to work on behalf of the Russian state, though its resources are likely to remain limited, and it will be deployed outside Russia. Against this background, the future of Wagner looks more positive than was first perceived in the early days after the rebellion, but it is almost certain the company won’t ever be given the resources it had in 2022. As for the prospects of Wagner’s presence abroad, the group probably will be able to save and maybe even grow its forces in Africa, while Middle Eastern markets are under risk. Syria has very strong cooperation and coordination with the Russian state and won’t keep Wagner on its territory if Moscow cancels its contracts with the group. AT: Russia has been a major arms exporter for decades. How has the war in Ukraine affected the country’s arms manufacturing industry and its exports of weapons? LN: The transformation of the conflict into a protracted war, with huge losses in terms of equipment, changed the priorities for Russia’s defense industry. Now, it is much more focused on raising the volumes of production for the local market, rather than for export. There are signs that the export of many types of Russian equipment slowed down or stopped after the beginning of the war in Ukraine. For example, there are photos of T-90S tanks modified for export that are being used by the Russian armed forces themselves in Ukraine, which means that clients are not getting them. Another telling example comes from Armenia, Russia’s Common Security Treaty Organization ally. Armenia ordered large volumes of armaments in August 2021 and still hasn’t received anything, which has pushed Yerevan to turn to new suppliers, in particular India and France. Another trend in the Russia defense industry involves simplifying the production process, with the aim of producing larger volumes in shorter timeframes. For example, some of the T-72B3 and T-80BVM tanks are no longer being equipped with the best available Sosna-U sights—a tank gunner’s sight produced in Belarus—and instead are being equipped with the much simpler 1PN96MT-02 sights. That approach disconnects the production rate of tanks from the production rate of the complex Sosna-U, which is limited and takes a longer time to produce. Using the same rationale, the Russian Defense Ministry began showing

Rewriting Russia’s Pursuits in the Middle East​ Read More »

Sign up for updates from APRI Armenia