Armenia and Turkey: in search of compromise in the context of geopolitical tension

Importance. Сomprehensive study of the problems of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey in the period from 1991 to 2025 is conducted. The historical background, foreign policy strategies and key events shaping the dynamics of Armenian-Turkish relations are analyzed. Special attention is paid to the role of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh as central factors hindering the normalization of bilateral relations. The work reveals the contradictory foreign policy approaches of Armenia and Turkey, due to historical memory, national interests and regional ambitions. The influence of external players, such as Russia, the United States and the EU, on the conflict resolution process is considered.

Materials and Methods. Based on a systematic and interdisciplinary approach, a model of normalization prospects is proposed, including recognition of historical truth and strategic compromises.

Results and Discussion. It is shown that in Armenian-Turkish relations, the historical contradictions related to the Armenian Genocide and its denial by Turkey remain the main barrier to normalization, while Erdogan’s policy of aggressively supporting Azerbaijan and expanding influence in the region led to Armenia’s loss of control over Nagorno-Karabakh. There are also differences in the approaches of Armenia, which, disappointed by the limited assistance of the West, is strengthening cooperation with Russia while maintaining ties with the EU and NATO, and the assessments of external actors, from the weakening of Moscow’s position to the balancing efforts of the United States, the EU and Iran. The prospects for a peace treaty promise economic benefits, but they come with risks to Armenia’s sovereignty, including territorial concessions and lack of guarantees for prisoners, reflecting the imbalance of forces and the complexity of resolving the conflict.

Conclusion. The Armenian-Turkish relations reflect the breakdown of the former system in the South Caucasus, where Turkey and Azerbaijan dominate, strengthening their positions through military support and projects like the Middle Corridor, while Russia is losing influence. Turkey’s approach is more aggressive and systematic than the balancing course of Armenia, which is faced with internal conflicts and US/EU caution over NATO. Forecasts point to normalization with risks of concessions, including the Zangezur Corridor, without guarantees. Armenia’s stability requires reforms, strengthening ties with Russia, and international guarantees from the United States, the EU, and Moscow.

1. Aivazyan A.S. (2020). Foreign policy features of contemporary Armenia. Nauchno-analiticheskii vestnik Instituta Evropy RAN = Scientific and Analytical Herald of IE RAS, no. 2 (14), pp. 98-103. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15211/vestnikieran2202098103, https://elibrary.ru/nxqxon

2. Kornilov A.A. (2021). The national security strategies of the Republic of Armenia 2007 and 2020: a comparative analysis of the main provisions. Sbornik nauchnykh statei «Regiony mira: problemy istorii, kul’tury i politiki» = Collection of Scientific Articles “World Regions: Problems of History, Culture and Policy”. Nizhnii Novgorod, vol. 5, pp. 139-144. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/btxxea

3. Ditrych O. (2023). After Nagorno-Karabach: A case for the EU’s strategic engagement in the new South Caucasus. JSTOR Security Studies, Nov. 1, pp. 1-4.

4. Vlasova K.V., Timchenko V.A. (2021). Escalation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 2020: Turkey’s position. Sbornik statei 21 Vserossijskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii «Obshchestvo. Nauka. Innovatsii (NPK-2021)»: v 2 t. = Proceedings of 21st All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference “Society. Science. Innovations (NPK-2021)”: in 2 vols. Kirov, vol. 1, pp. 831-838. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/paqqvu

5. Pritchin S.A. (2021). The Second Kaback war and the struggle for independence in Kazakhstan. Rossiya i novye gosudarstva Evrazii, no. 3 (52), pp. 153-164. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/2073-4786-2021-3- 153-164, https://elibrary.ru/hvintp

6. Khachatryan D.G. (2018). Nagorno-Karabakh conflict through prism of TurkeiArmenian relations. Postsovetskie issledovaniya, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 223-233. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/xrpprb

7. Agamaliev S.M., Gur’yanova E.N. (2021). Turkey’s geopolitical ambitions. The victories of Turkey in the international conflicts of the 21st century. Collection of Articles Based on the Student Scientific Seminars “History. Culture. Language”. Moscow, pp. 16-26. https://elibrary.ru/gqunak

8. Dudaiti A.K. (2022). Problems of security in the South Caucasus in the context of regional interaction between Russia, Iran and Turkey in the Post-Soviet period. Postsovetskie issledovaniya, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 771779. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/jflmse

9. Markarov A.A. (2017). Conceptual approaches and features of the foreign policy process: the main directions and tasks of Armenia’s foreign policy. Postsovetskii materik, no. 4 (16), pp. 40-57. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/xwfahj

10. Grafov D.B. Strategy of balancing in Turkish foreign policy. Vestnik MGIMO-Universiteta = MGIMO Review of International Relations, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 115-142. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160- 2022-3-84-115-142, https://elibrary.ru/kbnuoa

11. Davydov Yu.P. (2004). “Hard” and “soft” power in international relations theory. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy = International Trends, vol. 2, no. 1 (4), pp. 69-80. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/oiqcat

12. Bocharnikov I.V. (2021). Armenia’s multi-vector foreign policy: traditions and new political reality after the “Second Karabakh war”. Diplomaticheskaya sluzhba = Diplomatic Service, no. 3, pp. 242-256. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33920/vne-01-2103-03, https://elibrary.ru/wdhfwo

13. Tadevosyan M. (2025). Toward Functional Coexistence in Armenia-Turkey Relations. A Critical Analysis of the Normalization Process. Functional Coexistence in Socio-Political Conflict. London, pp. 131-150. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032702605-11