While the internal political life of Armenia was focused on a rather heated election campaign, the main foreign political topic is the new, complex realities created in Armenian-Russian relations. The Russian elite brought the topic of Armenia’s foreign policy choice to the public official agenda, demanding the RA authorities to decide whether to remain in the EAEU or to abandon the political goal of EU membership.

Recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Armenia’s plans to join the European Union “require special consideration”. According to him, the Russian Federation will support everything that is beneficial to the Armenian people. Regarding the topic, he proposed holding a referendum and giving the Armenian people the opportunity to decide the issue. Putin also noted that the trade turnover with Armenia has decreased, last year, it was much more than the year before, but still 7 billion dollars in 2025.

“If we take into account that the country’s GDP is 29 billion, it is a serious amount, and Armenia receives significant advantages within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union,” Putin said.

According to him, it would be right to take a decision as soon as possible, regarding the population and citizens of Armenia, or regarding the Russian Federation as the main economic partner.

He also said that he proposed to discuss Armenia’s plans related to the European Union at the next EAEU summit. However, Pashinyan announced that he will not participate in the meeting of the Supreme Council of EAEU to be held on May 28-29 in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan. He explained it with the campaign. Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan will replace Pashinyan at the session.

The RA authorities respond to the calls to take a stand on the issue of the EU and the EAEU, claiming that they are not going to “negotiate” with Russia, and they have no plans to leave the EAEU at the moment. However, it is also obvious that Russia will try to put pressure on Armenia through all member states of the EAEU platform or even raise the issue of withdrawing Armenia from the EAEU, which will probably be an extreme measure.

However, here too, it seems that the RA authorities have prepared for certain scenarios and are pinning their hopes on the fact that the EAEU decisions are made on the basis of consensus, therefore, even if RA opposes such a decision, the issue cannot be resolved. However, it is difficult to imagine that in case of desire and consensus in EAEU, it is not possible to create problems for Armenia in any format, as the RA authorities did by “freezing” the participation of Armenia in the CSTO.

This situation foreshadows a stage of economic and political “Zugtswang” for Armenia within the framework of EAEU, where the principle of consensus can turn into a double-edged sword. While Yerevan hopes to use its veto power to stop collective decisions against it, Moscow and similar organizations in this situation possess tools that allow them to bypass formal procedures.

From diplomatic circles 168.amtold that the first manifestation of the crisis may not be the institutional withdrawal, but the actual isolation of Armenia from the economic agenda, when strategic projects, customs privileges and investment programs begin to be implemented in the “minus one” format, leaving Armenia in the status of a static member of the Union.

In the second dimension, according to our source, the crisis may continue and deepen in the field of technical and sanitary regulations, which is often used in the EAEU toolkit as a means of political pressure, and taking into account the high dependence of Armenia’s economy on the Russian market and energy sources, Moscow may initiate “regulation wars”, justifying them with Armenia’s possible rapprochement with the EU and inconsistency of standards, which Russian high-ranking officials are already talking about. This will create a situation where Armenia, while remaining a de jure member of the Union, will de facto be deprived of its economic advantages, which may raise a wave of internal political discontent, considering the pre-election hot atmosphere and the importance of economic indicators.

Finally, the worst scenario is related to the fact that the lack of consensus can bring the structure to a state of paralysis, under which member states can make different decisions and develop new legal mechanisms.

In order to face this crisis, Armenia can adopt and, as can be seen from the official statements, tactics of resistance, making the most of the EAEU legal treaty opportunities and the new ties and arrangements being formed with Kazakhstan. Taking advantage of the principle of consensus, RA has the opportunity to suspend initiatives that are against its interests and to make any obstacle a subject of discussion in other EAEU structures.

However, in the end, the effectiveness of the struggle of the RA authorities will depend on the speed of reducing economic dependence, and experts note that it is not possible to quickly reduce economic dependence on the Russian Federation in the near future. Diversification of export destinations and energy sovereignty could help neutralize the consequences of possible isolation in the EAEU, but none of them is a visible prospect today and in the near future. Therefore, in the absence of economic alternatives, Yerevan will have to make light diplomatic concessions and maneuvers in an attempt to avoid a crisis related to Armenia in the EAEU, which may lead to unpredictable socio-economic upheavals.

—