The 8th summit of the European Political Community (ECC) held in Yerevan on May 4 became the watershed that finally crystallized the systemic rift accumulated over the years in Armenian-Russian relations. Although the European vector adopted by official Yerevan was not new, the events that took place within the framework of this event, in particular the participation and speech of the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky, brought the tension of relations to a crisis point.

The most telling episode of this tension was the summons of the Armenian ambassador to the Russian Foreign Ministry and the note of protest presented to him. This is an extreme step in diplomatic practice, which proves that Moscow is no longer limited to public statements.

The ambassador’s summons means that the Kremlin describes Yerevan’s actions not as an ordinary disagreement, but as a direct and gross violation of alliance obligations, which requires an official record. Although, it should also be noted here that both the Armenian authorities and many representatives of the expert community state that Russia has not fulfilled its alliance obligations in many episodes, as a result of which the RA authorities have decided to change RA’s foreign policy, starting to reduce dependence on the Russian Federation.

The observations made by Maria Zakharova on May 7 completed this picture. He emphasized that Yerevan, providing a platform for Zelensky’s anti-Russian rhetoric, actually becomes part of the anti-Russian coalition of the West. For the Russian side, this is not just a manifestation of the “multi-vector” policy, but a demonstrative step against Russia’s vital interests in the territory of its ally.

It should be taken into account that all this is happening against the background of already existing deep grievances. Yerevan’s public questioning of the CSTO’s effectiveness, criticism of the role of Russian peacekeepers, and the ratification of the Rome Statute created an environment where trust was nullified.

The Yerevan summit simply tore the last diplomatic veil, showing that Armenia is going to change its strategic ally.

What can follow the ambassador’s call and similar harsh response? First of all, a new phase of “freezing” of bilateral relations is expected, where Russia can take some steps and apply pressure. Dissatisfaction presented to the ambassador can turn into concrete steps, which Russia often applies to countries that leave its “orbit”.

Armenia may face a serious challenge in the international arena. the strengthening of the European vector, which was so demonstratively implemented during the summit, will require security guarantees from the West.

However, if these guarantees are not adequate and timely, Armenia may find itself in a security zone where the old ally is already hostile, and the new partners are not ready to assume full responsibility.

And the hope of the RA authorities is the peace agenda. And, perhaps, it is no coincidence that in these processes, the RA authorities talk about established peace and consider the very fact of peace as a guarantee, because no western country will assume the role of guarantor of RA’s security in the event of Russia leaving the orbit.

The May 4 summit and the subsequent Russian diplomatic démarche in the form of an ambassador’s summons mark the end of the classical model of Armenian-Russian relations. This is no longer a disagreement, but an open geopolitical separation, where each side starts playing by its own rules. For Armenia, this means a transition to a high-risk zone, where political, economic and energy pressures from Russia are possible.

In case of possible economic and energy pressures from Moscow, the European Union, as a rule, offers a toolkit of “resilience enhancement”. First of all, this implies financial support and investment packages to mitigate the economic shock caused by the possible closure of the Russian market.

However, in the political and security sphere, the EU’s proposals are often limited to the expansion of “soft power” and observation missions, which means that in the event of an open confrontation with Moscow, the European “safety cushion” offered to Yerevan will have a mostly advisory nature.

In the short term, EU “resilience tools” have a rather limited and mainly psychological and financial “first aid” meaning. They cannot quickly replace the decades-old economic and energy circumstances.

Summing up, it should be noted that in the short term EU instruments provide some stability, but not security in all areas.

By the way, European analysts also recognize these circumstances, noting that this is a difficult path. Regardless of the various Western aids, Armenia will have to overcome the difficult transitional phase alone, remaining in a vulnerable state.

—