Bilateral relations between Armenia and Russia entered a qualitatively new phase of open confrontation and structural rupture, the foundations of which were laid during the pre-election period and intensified in the context of geopolitical contradictions.

Bilateral diplomatic tension has reached a critical point, when the parties are unable to reach an agreement on fundamental economic and political issues.

Moscow demands from Yerevan to decide whether to go to the EU or to maintain membership in the EAEU by holding a referendum in a short period of time, and Yerevan demands from Russia to remove restrictions that contradict the EAEU and bilateral legal treaty base.

Nikoli Pashinyan’s next step after the elections in order to alleviate the economic pressures, the call to Putin, seems to have aggravated the bilateral atmosphere, not leading to any mutual understanding between the parties. After the parliamentary elections, not receiving any response from Russia regarding the elections held in RA, Pashinyan initiated a call to the Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, which was followed by his visit to Russia and the meeting with Mishustin there.

Armenian-Russian economic issues were on the agenda of the meeting, but the meeting did not produce any objective results, shortly after that, the Russian Federation already banned the entry of Armenian dairy products into the Russian market.

The Pashinyan-Putin telephone conversation did not seem to change the situation either. judging by reports, Putin repeated Russia’s ultimatum to Armenia, the demand to hold a referendum in a short period of time, and Pashinyan noted that a referendum cannot be held at the moment, because Armenia is not currently applying for EU membership.

According to Pashinyan, such a question does not exist at the moment. Immediately after the unsuccessful negotiations, Nikol Pashinyan made a statement stating that the Eurasian Economic Union is de facto “paralyzed and does not work”.

Pashinyan announced. “The EAEU is a platform where I will raise all the issues related to our agenda. I will say what I said in the briefing. I said in the briefing that the EAEU is paralyzed. If the EAEU contract is not valid, the EAEU is not valid. And the EAEU is de facto paralyzed, and the paralysis shows tendencies to deepen. If this issue is not resolved quickly, I am 100% sure that the Republic of Armenia will overcome this problem, EAEU will not.”

He also said that he cannot say about the feelings of the Russian Federation.

“I can say that Russia sees a problem there. There is an element of exclusivity there too. The question is, either the relationship is exclusive or the relationship shouldn’t be. We do not accept that approach,” he stated. According to Pashinyan, Yerevan has a “legitimate position”, that is, relations with Russia are not exclusive, but there must be relations. “I ask that they approach our position with understanding and respect, especially since in practice its legitimacy is not questioned,” he emphasized.

Pashinyan also hinted that for 30 years many things have been free in Armenia, and it may happen that Armenia starts demanding 2 billion dollars a year. He said this while referring to the controversy over “South Caucasian Railways”.

In the near future, the EAEU intergovernmental session, which takes place at the level of the prime ministers, will probably be quite heated, because the statements of the RA authorities show that, without renouncing the EAEU membership, but describing the EAEU as a paralyzed structure, the RA authorities will try to use the legal and contractual opportunities of the EAEU and publicly raise the issues that concern the RA authorities.

In this context, it is noteworthy to consider Russia’s traditional approach to the interdependence of foreign policy and economy. In Moscow’s political philosophy, bilateral alliance relations and economic privileges are, as a rule, in an inseparable unity, and the tough position of the Russian leadership is due to this fact.

Yerevan’s approach to build reliable political relations with the West and maintain economic partnership with Russia, using preferential regimes, is unacceptable to the Russian leadership.

Pashinyan’s intensified rhetoric after the phone conversation shows that apparently the phone conversation did not work out for the Armenian side, the parties did not even reach an agreement to meet in the near future. At this stage, Moscow seems to expect one thing from Yerevan: to decide whether to leave the EAEU or to maintain its membership.

In this situation, the influence of external actors on the course of Armenian-Russian relations deserves special attention. In recent years, Armenia has consistently deepened its cooperation with the European Union and the United States, both in political, security, and economic directions.

That process is perceived in Moscow not as a multi-vector foreign policy, but as a strategy of gradual withdrawal from Russia’s sphere of influence. It is within the framework of this perception that the economic restrictions are considered, which can serve as a political impulse for the Russian side to show that the strategic partnership cannot be limited only to economic interests.

At the same time, Yerevan’s calculation seems to be based on the belief that EAEU treaty mechanisms and international legal instruments provide an opportunity to protect the interests of the Armenian side without leaving the organization or making a final decision on foreign policy choices.

Therefore, the coming months may become a decisive stage for Armenian-Russian relations. If the economic differences are not resolved and the political rhetoric continues to harden, the bilateral relations may gradually move into the field of a long-term systemic crisis, affecting not only trade and economic cooperation, but also regional security and integration processes.

At the same time, new negotiation attempts cannot be ruled out, as both Armenia and Russia continue to have mutual interests in the fields of energy, transport, migration and trade.

However, it is obvious that the former model of “political differences while maintaining economic cooperation” is increasingly difficult to implement, and both sides are faced with the need for strategic choices, the results of which can significantly transform not only the nature of Armenian-Russian relations, but also the general arrangement of forces in the South Caucasus.

—

Emma Tsarukyan, daughter of PAP leader, philanthropist Gagik Tsarukyan, famous ophthalmologist, wrote on her social network page.

“My father didn’t get his name ready, he built it over the years. Because when they try to touch what a man has created, and people continue to remember the good he did, you understand that he has already created the most important wealth of his life.

It is not confiscated, it is not deleted. I grew up seeing how my father put years of his life, strength and soul into what he created. And today, the pain is not the fear of loss… the pain is trying to treat the creation of a lifetime as if those years never happened.

You can touch his creation, close doors, change names, try to remove a person from his own creation.
But you can’t take one thing: the trace he left. Because the greatest property of a person is not what is written on paper, but what is written in people’s memory.

And that creation is not taken away by any decision, they are not erased by any paper. Because there are things whose owner is not determined by the paper, but by time, people’s memory and God.

All this is done before the eyes of God. I know the price of what has been created over the years, I know what it means to make one’s name not only a surname, but a responsibility.

When you believe in God, you understand that the truth can sometimes be delayed in the eyes of people, but before God it is never lost. One day, these days will also become the past, today’s noise will also be silent.

And time will leave everyone next to what he did. I believe that God will open the door that people closed, and my father will continue the path in freedom, on which he still has a lot of work given by God to do.”

—

Artak Zakaryan, member of the General Assembly of the RPA, former MP, writes:

We have said many times that as a result of the alien policy of Nikol’s government, Armenia will be at the center of conflicting interests of major powers. Today we can confidently say that after transferring Artsakh, which has billions of assets and is of strategic irreplaceable importance for Armenia, to the enemy, the covert government, starting from 2025, is pushing all the citizens of Armenia into a new, dangerous trap.

Now we can say that we are in that trap. Those who see and understand the situation imagine the meaning of what I am saying. Those who do not understand and cannot see think that I am exaggerating and criticizing baselessly. God be with them.

If, as can be seen from the developments, the United States fails to destabilize Iran, Russia maintains and develops its influence on the Ukrainian front, and the Western influence weakens even more in Georgia, the prospects of turning the South Caucasus into a corridor controlled by the West will become unlikely.

Iran will vehemently oppose any deal that would expand Western or pan-Turkic influence near its borders. Moscow (and in some cases also Ankara) will also try to prevent the South Caucasus from turning into a strategic base for a number of Western countries and a gateway to Central Asia.

In this sense, Azerbaijan and Georgia conduct an equal role and face-saving policy in all possible scenarios.

In the case of Armenia, the main problem is not the choice between turning to the West or maintaining ties with the Russian Federation (EAEU). The main question for trapped Armenia is whether we will be able to maintain sufficient strategic independence and control over our own territories and transit routes in order to have a significant role (value, weight) for the competing forces in the South Caucasus, while not becoming a victim of their conflict.

After the change of power, it will be extremely difficult, but it is possible and necessary. And in the case of Nikol’s government, we can consider that we are going the way of putting our state and sovereignty to the test.

The CP has already got what it wanted in the geopolitical trade, in the form of Western support in the last election. Instead, the CP will continue to satisfy foreign interests, even if it leads to conflict or new threats.

It is here that the historical parallel becomes particularly disturbing and familiar. A hundred years ago, Armenia again found itself between the clash of expanding regional powers, whose strategic ambitions ultimately determined the fate of our country. And they decided against us.

If the planned regional transformations really take place, then we risk becoming the main loser, because the principled struggle for our geographical position, in the case of Nikol’s government, will hardly leave any opportunity to make independent choices.

What shall we do? Shall we continue to applaud the deepening contradictions with the Russians, without knowing the details, should we be excited by the TRIPP project, should we naively believe that the Turks and Azerbaijanis have planned a peaceful life for us, should we ignore the threatening developments in the Middle East, should we unconditionally believe in the Russians or Europeans, or should we collect our minds and get serious? with the problems of our country.

—