BY RAFFY ARDHALDJIAN
Like every year, April 2025 has seen many commemorations. While these observances fulfill an important role in Armenian collective memory, many of the sermons and articles don’t seem to reflect any new thinking besides “let’s keep up the struggle.” It feels that this approach is inadequate in light of the catastrophic defeats Armenians faced in 2020 and 2023. As we honor our past, we must critically examine our vulnerabilities and security needs with fresh perspectives.
Throughout Armenian history, communities have faced existential threats requiring difficult choices. Two pivotal moments illustrate contrasting approaches, each offering valuable lessons.
In September 1915, the Armenian community of Ourfa (along with others in 1915 in Van, Shabin Karahissar, Mousa Dagh & Sasoun) made a fateful decision when faced with deportation orders during the Armenian Genocide. Rather than submitting to certain death on forced marches, they chose armed resistance. For nearly a month, from September 29 to October 23, these defenders fought valiantly against overwhelming forces, exhausting their ammunition and sacrificing their lives rather than surrendering to ethnic cleansing. Among those martyred were members of my own Arzouhaldjian clan, whose sacrifice exemplifies the terrible choice between resistance and submission.
Nearly 108 years later, the Armenians of Artsakh faced a different outcome. Following a nine-month blockade, the population endured a severe humanitarian crisis. When Azerbaijani forces launched their large-scale military offensive on September 19 2023, resistance collapsed within 24 hours. The 120,000 Armenians of Artsakh chose mass exodus rather than remaining under Azerbaijani control.
These episodes raise profound questions about how outcomes might differ with a different mindset. What if Armenian communities embraced an approach emphasizing strategic foresight? What if “Never Again” was backed not by appeals to international conscience, but by native defensive capabilities? What if victimhood was replaced by agency—not begging for security but systematically developing it?
The trauma of genocide has shaped Armenian political thinking into two predominant but limited archetypes.
The first is the “concessionist” mindset—advocating territorial or political compromise for temporary peace. While understandable, this approach has repeatedly demonstrated that concessions without guarantees often invite further aggression.
The second represents the “symbolic nationalist”—engaging primarily in emotional rhetoric and appeals to an indifferent international community. While this commitment to Armenian identity and historical justice is admirable, it lacks the strategic vision to translate moral righteousness into effective protection.
Both approaches have proven inadequate in preventing threats to Armenian populations. They represent reactions to past violence rather than forward-looking strategies.
The annual refrain of “Never Again” risks becoming hollow without practical means to prevent repetition of past horrors. This requires a shift from perpetual victimhood to dignified agency.
This transition demands political will to invest in defensive capabilities even during periods of relative calm. For Armenians, this means developing the psychological resilience and strategic patience to build capacities that ensure any aggression would carry prohibitive consequences.
Security experts sometimes discuss the “Porcupine Defense Doctrine”—named after the small mammal that no predator attacks lightly. A porcupine harbors no expansionist ambitions, yet any aggressor knows an attack will result in painful consequences.
For smaller nations, this approach emphasizes developing asymmetric capabilities that make aggression prohibitively costly. Rather than attempting to match the conventional capabilities of larger neighbors, the focus shifts to specialized systems that target vulnerabilities of potential aggressors and act as effective deterrents.
Countries like Finland, Singapore, Switzerland, and Taiwan have implemented variations of this approach, maintaining their independence despite neighboring larger powers. Their experiences suggest that even modest-sized nations can ensure security through strategic investments and clear signaling of defensive resolve.
Armenia’s highland topography offers a perfect theater to implement the porcupine doctrine across its borders and integrate it into its military capabilities and national security framework. The mountainous terrain naturally lends itself to defensive operations that can deny adversaries easy access while imposing disproportionate costs on any aggression.
The porcupine doctrine extends beyond military considerations to include diplomatic, media, cyber, and financial domains as critical deterrence components. In diplomacy, this means building relationships based on mutual interests rather than appeals for sympathy. Nations respect capability, not victimhood.
In the media, this requires developing capabilities to counter disinformation and shape international opinion. The cyber domain offers opportunities for asymmetric leverage where modest investments can yield significant deterrent effects.
Financial deterrence involves identifying economic vulnerabilities of potential adversaries and developing mechanisms to impose targeted sanctions in coordination with allies. For diasporic communities, these dimensions offer valuable opportunities to contribute to national security through strategic expertise.
Even as genocide recognition has advanced globally, this moral recognition did not translate into effective interventions when new threats emerged. Yet neither Armenian diplomacy nor the Armenian lobby appears to have adjusted to this reality. It’s business as usual—continuing to pursue (or not) recognition and statements of condemnation without developing leverage necessary for meaningful security guarantees.
This requires moving beyond the inadequate genocide archetypes of the concessionist or the powerless nationalist, toward a culture that combines moral clarity with practical capability. It requires Armenian political thought to develop real deterrent capacity and instill an effectively resilient mindset in Armenians, rather than relying on symbolic commemorations on every April 24 that fade from memory within weeks. In doing so, the phrase “Never Again” might finally gain the substance it has long deserved.
Only then we would have learned from the heroic September battles of our communities of Ourfa in 1915 and Artsakh in 2023.
