Armenia’s intelligence report falls short, says political analyst

The annual report from Armenia’s Foreign Intelligence Service has been critiqued by political scientist Suren Surenyants, who describes it as a fragmented collection of assumptions and forecasts, lacking professional justification and failing to meet the standards of a serious analytical report.

Surenyants shared his thoughts during a conversation with Armenian media, Caliber.Az reports.

The Service’s report, which was recently released, includes a prediction that "Baku will continue to expand its military arsenal and offensive potential in 2025," though it also states that the likelihood of large-scale aggression by Azerbaijan against Armenia this year is low. Surenyants, however, finds the report lacking in depth and substance.

In his critique, Surenyants remarked, "It seems as if someone with average abilities hastily 'stitched together' fragments of Nikol Pashinyan’s speeches and called it a report. I’m very sorry, but this report wouldn’t even receive a positive assessment as a paper in the second or third year of an international relations department. As a political analyst by profession, I definitely wouldn’t waste my time reading such material."

The political scientist also pointed out that the report offers no new insights into the military-political risks faced by Armenia. Instead, it presents a "mechanical" sequence of thoughts from Prime Minister Pashinyan regarding the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. Surenyants suggests comparing this report with that of the Western non-governmental geopolitical intelligence platform Stratfor, which provides a large volume of information, analyzes the interrelation of events, and examines phenomena on a global scale.

Regarding the CSTO, Surenyants emphasized that the issue cannot be considered in isolation from other security systems. He argues, "If you express an opinion about the viability of the CSTO, it would be appropriate to also offer insights on new opportunities in the field of security, so that the report has value. Otherwise, I repeat, it looks like a futile student paper."

Commenting on the Foreign Intelligence Service’s statement that the authority of the CSTO "will continue to remain a subject of serious doubts and a source for relevant conclusions from other member states," Surenyants pointed out that other member states have long made their conclusions and expressed their positions. He expressed confusion as to why an agency within Armenia’s executive branch fails to discuss Yerevan’s official approaches toward the CSTO, instead forecasting the alliance’s future as a novice analyst might.

"Armenia has no influence either regionally or globally for its relationships with any organization to serve as a model for other countries. Unfortunately, this is a fact that must be acknowledged," Surenyants added.

According to Surenyants, the evaluation of external risks is also inadequate. In particular, the report downplays the threats associated with international terrorism. This occurs despite warnings from independent analysts, who have raised concerns that Armenia's signing of the Charter on Strategic Partnership between the United States of America and Armenia and its participation in the international coalition against ISIS could potentially position the country as a target for terrorist organizations.

By Vafa Guliyeva