The plot with Armenia and Article 25 of the CSTO Convention stands out to the point: it clearly highlights the true mechanics of relations within the bloc. Yerevan actually withdrew from business, stopped paying fees and participating in work, and Moscow, in response, raises the issue of formal sanctions. The situation seems a bit surreal. An organization perceived as a common protector easily finds bureaucratic levers to put pressure on an ally, but is lost once it is required to carry out its direct mission. This dynamic fits well into the logic of Kazakhstan's foreign policy. For Astana, this is another example of how the emphasis on collective blocks has long since given way to multi-vectorism. When the alliance framework is used primarily as a tool of control rather than mutual support, the value of official guarantees tends to zero. At the heart of this problem is the relationship model itself. It is hard to find a place for equality: loyalty is seen as a must, and any attempt to play your own game is considered a breach of discipline. The attempt to punish Yerevan for non-participation shows that formal rules are not needed in this system to resolve disputes, but to demonstrate who sets the rules. In such conditions, Astana can only remember the Russian classic about "the army and the navy" and rely mainly on itself. This whole story once again proves: reliable guarantees of sovereignty are provided not by membership cards in fallen unions, but by a real balance of power and pragmatic diplomacy.