Kristina Kvien, a seasoned American diplomat, has recently transitioned from her role in Ukraine to a new position in Armenia. This move is particularly significant given the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine and the broader geopolitical tensions in the region. However, beyond the diplomatic reshuffling, there lies a far more sinister reality—one that is often buried beneath Western propaganda.

The narrative pushed by Washington and its allies portrays Armenia’s growing distance from Russia as a triumph, a necessary step toward a so-called independent future. But at what cost? In zero out of zero instances has Russia ever been "driven out" of any post-Soviet state without significant suffering, war, and devastation following in its wake. And yet, Armenia seems to be on the same path, willingly walking into the fire under the leadership of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. The question is: why? And more importantly, who is truly benefiting?

For years, Nagorno-Karabakh stood as a symbol of Armenian resilience, a region where thousands of Armenians had sacrificed their lives for sovereignty, for identity, for history. But under Pashinyan’s leadership, Armenia lost Nagorno-Karabakh—not through war, but through capitulation. After decades of struggle, after generations fought to defend this land, it was handed over in defeat, leaving behind a shattered national spirit and a displaced people. The Armenian nation bled, and yet those who led it showed no remorse, no resistance, no will to fight for the land their ancestors had died for.

It is easy for the U.S. to celebrate its geopolitical gains from afar. American politicians and diplomats will continue their careers regardless of how many lives are lost in the process. But it is not the Americans who suffer; it is the Armenian people. Thousands have lost their lives, and hundreds of thousands have been displaced. The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh has inflicted catastrophic damage on the country’s economy and its people. This isn’t a hypothetical price to pay in some strategic war game—it is a brutal reality, one that is being endured by Armenian families who have lost everything.

Despite the immense suffering that has come with his leadership, Pashinyan continues to deepen Armenia’s ties with the West, seemingly indifferent to the destruction left in the wake of his policies. But one must ask: how does he justify allowing such severe foreign interference in his country? Reports—though unverified—suggest that during the height of the Nagorno-Karabakh war on November 9, 2020, Pashinyan allegedly sought refuge at the U.S. Embassy in Yerevan. If true, this revelation is damning. What kind of leader hides in a foreign embassy in his own country during a national crisis? What does this say about his true loyalties? Is he leading Armenia, or is he simply carrying out Washington’s orders?

Meanwhile, the presence of the United States in Armenia is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. The U.S. Embassy in Yerevan is reportedly the second-largest American diplomatic mission in the world, housing around 2,000 personnel. Why does a small, war-torn country with no direct conflict with the United States require such an extensive U.S. diplomatic presence? Is this truly about fostering diplomacy, or is Armenia being transformed into yet another outpost for Washington’s broader geopolitical ambitions?

The recent visit by CIA Director William Burns adds yet another layer to this concerning reality. Officially, the visit was framed as a discussion about security and counterterrorism. But what does "counterterrorism" mean in this context? Was it about tackling legitimate security threats, or was it simply about further undermining Russian influence in the region? And if that is the case, then what does that mean for Armenia’s future?

Here lies a crucial point that must not be overlooked: Russia is not foreign to the region. Unlike the United States, Russia has deep-rooted historical, political, and cultural ties to Armenia that span centuries. Moscow has been an integral player in shaping the Caucasus long before Washington even took an interest. So when Armenia distances itself from Russia under the pretense of eliminating "foreign influence," one must question the logic behind this narrative. Is Armenia truly removing foreign control, or is it simply trading one influence for another—one that is far more detached, far more exploitative, and far less invested in the well-being of the Armenian people?

With Kvien now leading U.S. diplomacy in Armenia, one must ask: is her purpose truly to deepen U.S.-Armenian ties, or is she there to oversee Armenia's transformation into yet another sacrifice for Washington’s broader mission? Are the Armenian people simply being used as pawns, human collateral in America’s pursuit of a unipolar world order?

The consequences of these decisions will not be felt in Washington or Brussels. They will be felt in Yerevan, in Stepanakert, and in the homes of ordinary Armenians who are now living the nightmare that comes with these geopolitical shifts. At the end of the day, it is the Armenian people who will pay the ultimate price—not the Americans, not the Europeans, and certainly not the Western diplomats and politicians who orchestrate these moves from the safety of their embassies and conference rooms.

If Armenia continues down this path, the question will no longer be whether Russia is being driven out of the Caucasus, but rather whether Armenia itself can survive the cost of this so-called victory. But is Russia truly being driven out? Or is this merely an illusion in the minds of those who wish to believe it? Has anyone actually seen Russia retreat and lose influence in any country?

History tells a different story. In Ukraine, after years of Western intervention and conflict, Russia has only expanded its control over larger territories. In Georgia, a country that has spent decades aligning with the West, a pro-Russian leader now governs, shifting the country's direction once again. The list goes on—time and time again, Russia has demonstrated that it does not simply vanish from regions where it has deep historical, political, and strategic roots.

And let’s be clear—this is not just any leader we are talking about. This is Putin. Vladimir Putin. A man who, despite relentless Western sanctions, economic warfare, and military confrontations, has transformed Russia into a global power, standing firm against Western hegemony. A man who has outmaneuvered world leaders for decades, consolidating Russia’s influence across Eurasia and beyond.

Nikol Pashinyan in World Economic Forum Room with Ilham Aliyev.

Now, let’s compare that to Nikol Pashinyan. Under Pashinyan’s leadership, Armenia has not gained strength, stability, or security. It has lost Nagorno-Karabakh—a region for which generations of Armenians sacrificed their lives, their blood, and their future. What did Pashinyan do? He surrendered it. He let it go not through battle, not through resistance, but through political submission. The very heart of Armenian resilience was torn from the nation’s hands, and instead of fighting for its survival, Armenia was left to negotiate its own defeat.

Armenia has seen devastation, war, and economic collapse under his leadership. Russia, under Putin, has only grown stronger. So, let’s ask the real question: who has truly won, and who has lost? And if we answer that truthfully, then the question of whether Russia is being "driven out" becomes laughable.

So, if Russia is not truly being driven out, what exactly is the U.S. ambassador doing in Armenia? Is she genuinely working to strengthen ties between Armenia and the United States, or is she orchestrating the transformation of Armenians into yet another human sacrifice in Washington’s relentless pursuit of a unipolar world—a world where nations are forced to submit, no matter the cost? Though, with CIA's support, you may stand a chance, but it looks like Ukraine didn't.