The expressions pro-Western or ally of the West differ on both political and grammatical principles. When saying that Armenia is an ally of the West, a number of mistakes appear: can Armenia fulfill any mutual obligations to the West or can it meet the standards required to be an ally of the West?

To be honest, it would be more desirable to see Armenia as a developed, civilized European country than to see Armenia as a remnant of an empire that has rusted for many years. But there are regrettable points here. The first is that Armenia abandons its territorial claims and expansionist policies that are uncharacteristic of the civilized world, and which unfortunately are still continuously promoted in Western countries. Although the second issue is somewhat imaginary, it can be considered important for a country that wants to integrate into Europe. Armenia's paying compensation before the European court over expelling Azerbaijanis, even the Kurdish ethnic community, from Karabakh in the 1990s and mass murdering some of them, would be more appropriate. However, this is far from reality.

Another issue is to know the West before becoming an ally of the West. The fact that Armenia blindly dreams of the West and dreams of itself as a flourishing state in the South Caucasus may be due to the severe trauma of its defeat in the war. However, this can endanger not only Armenia, but also other regional states.

First of all, it is worth noting that the Georgian-Russian War in 2008, and the Ukrainian crisis proved that intellectuals and policymakers from the former USSR did not understand the Western, especially the EU, foreign policy. It is not clear why but these intellectuals and policymakers thought that democracy was the remedy for everything. They assumed that if they proved that they were democrats the West would sacrifice itself to save them. That is when the West left Georgia alone in war with Russia in 2008, it shocked everybody from the former USSR.

Even Mikheil Saakashvili, who democratized Georgia and brought new hope to the South Caucasus did not expect it. Honestly, he did a great job for Georgia socially but made a big mistake in terms of army-building. First of all, like all former Soviet intellectuals or policymakers, he believed too much in democracy and the West. Thinking that the West would protect him or that democracy would make a miracle, Mikhael Saakashvili shrank the army to 20,000 servicemen. In addition, he annulated reservists. To top it all off, disdaining Georgian experienced military men and professional generals, he dismissed them. Probably, he thought that generals graduating from Soviet military schools could not fight as well as generals graduating from military schools in democratic countries.

Thus, when Russia attacked Georgia with 75,000 servicemen, the average age of Georgian generals was 40. This brave nation, which unlike Armenians has been famous for its courage, could not stop Russia. The West immediately blamed Mikhael Saakashvili in miscalculation and started to bargain with Moscow. The Western media outlet the image of the Georgian president by screening him chewing his tie. Even one of the British titled that "big countries do not commit suicide for their little allies."

Similar things happened in 2014 when a coup attempt succeeded and the pro-Russian government collapsed in Ukraine. Russia annexed Ukrainian territories and the West was satisfied with observing. When the second phase of the Ukrainian crisis commenced, I mean Russia attacked Kyiv in 2022, the same West turned an "angel" and provided Ukraine with limited supplies. The West can supply Ukraine with the proper weapons to finish the war but they do not prefer to it. Because they are interested in neither the lives of Ukrainians nor the territorial integrity of Ukraine, they are only interested in weakening Russia. For this purpose, the war should continue as much as possible.

Given the abovementioned facts, one can conclude that the West does not look for a partner for whose sake to commit suicide. On the contrary, the West looks for a partner who can be sacrificed for the interest of Brussels.

The problem is Armenia does not meet the standards of quality set by the West. The reason is simple; Armenia is doomed to be a failed country due to its inept policy at least to restore relations with neighbouring countries in the South Caucasus region. Even Russia, who created Armenia, today has had enough of Armenia and assesses it as luggage without a handle. It has neither economic potential, nor natural resources, nor demographic potential to protect itself. The country previously relied on Russian protection and today thinks that they are too smart to trick the West. In short, like the West, Armenia looks for a partner who can sacrifice itself for the sake of Yerevan. In other words, the expectations of Yerevan and Brussels do not overlap but contradict. Knowing that the West is not a sucker, it is crystal clear that Armenia will stay in the satellite of Russia.