The pre-election campaign, which is heating up day by day in Armenia, is accompanied by a large foreign political component: harsh criticism of the RA authorities from Russia, words of unconditional support, visits and gestures from the West. And while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio visits Armenia in the hottest stage of the election campaign and signs three bilateral documents with the Armenian side, raising the Armenian-American cooperation to the level of a comprehensive strategic partnership, the Russian Federation calls on Armenia at the highest level to decide whether to stay in the EAEU or to leave the structure.

All this is also accompanied by small economic sanctions from Russia, due to the quality characteristics of a number of goods supplied from Armenia to Russia, which the RA authorities consider normal work problems, not seeing any extraordinary situation in all of this. Along with all this, the so-called topic of spies and agents has gained momentum in Armenia, the topic is circulated in every possible way, turning the topic of the so-called intervention from the Russian Federation into a key topic in the pre-election discourse. And the more Russia-West opposition, the discourse, escalates within Armenia, the more the statements from Russia escalate, turning into threats.

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council the other day he severely criticized the foreign policy conducted by Nikol Pashinyan and the government, comparing it to the example of Ukraine. Medvedev announced that Nikol Pashinyan has chosen the path of severing relations with Russia, which will harm the entire Armenian nation and the country’s economy.

“We are ready to continue developing effective, mutually beneficial cooperation and equal cooperation with Armenia and its people. But in order for this to happen, our ally must have a constructive leadership that is ready to be friends with Russia,” said the vice president of the Council of the Russian Federation.

Andrey Lugovoi, vice-chairman of the Russian State Duma Security and Anti-Corruption Commission also proposed to review the gas concessions provided by Russia to Armenia, as well as consider the possibility of restricting the import of Armenian cognac.

“For decades, Russian gas was not only a commodity for Armenia, but also an element of alliance architecture. If that system breaks down, the preferential price must be replaced by a commercial price. In that case, it is proposed to increase it to the level of European prices: 400-600 dollars per thousand cubic meters”, held in the State Duma, “Armenia without Russia and Russia without Armenia. causes, results and consequences”, Lugovoi said during the round table.

In addition, according to the deputy, it is also necessary to “restrict” the preferential customs rules and regimes that give Armenia the opportunity to use the Russian economic territory, as well as to carry out a complete audit of Armenia’s interstate obligations towards Russia.

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova also asserted that, unlike the European Union, “cooperation within the EAEU framework is not politicized and is built on the basis of mutual respect and equality”. He also said that if Armenia continues the process of joining the EU, Russia will stop the agreements on the supply of gas, oil products and diamonds to the republic.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov He also said that gas subsidies are Russia’s aid to Armenia, and they are done at Russia’s expense.

“Privilege is always given at someone’s expense, it does not fall from the sky. The privilege given to RA is at the expense of the Russian Federation. This is really our contribution to the development of Armenia,” the Kremlin spokesman emphasized.

He added: for example, now, when gas is sold to Europeans for 500-800 dollars, no one helps them at their own expense, the Americans help them for a large amount of money. He addressed the issue of the possible cancellation of the gas agreement with Armenia to the “Gazprom” company.

“You should ask Gazprom about that, I don’t know anything about the cancellation.” There is a preferential price there, it can be higher or lower, and it can be revised, and corporations can raise that issue. It is a corporate issue, you should contact Gazprom,” Peskov told reporters, answering the question whether the possibility of canceling the agreement on supplying gas to Armenia at preferential prices is really being discussed.

Peskov also said that Armenia remains in EAEU, he will participate in the union summit to be held in Astana at a working level. “Armenia remains in the EAEU. Armenia will participate at the working level, but it will participate anyway, the entire top leadership of the country is busy with the election campaign, that is understandable,” said Peskov. Let’s remind that the Eurasian Economic Forum with the participation of the leaders of the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) will take place on May 28 in Astana.

The topic is actively covered by the Russian mass media. RIA Novosti, studying the data of the national statistical services, writes that in case of leaving the Eurasian Economic Union, Armenia puts almost 40 percent of its turnover at risk.

Today, Nikol Pashinyan referred to the direct and indirect threats related to the price of gas, saying that it is illogical to threaten Armenia, for example, with a high price, there is an answer to that threat: “we will have much more money so that it does not seem expensive to us.” “The people of Armenia should have an alternative: to be a member of the EAEU or to be a member of the European Union. I will not decide that, you will decide that. My point is that you have alternatives, and you do have alternatives. Those of our colleagues who respond to this with threats, even if hidden, are acting against themselves, because they have to make an offer to the Armenian people, say: we will do this good thing, we will do that, they, on the contrary, say: we will do this bad thing,” Pashinyan noted. Emphasizing that today Armenia is becoming a crossroads of peace, he said. “It means that Armenia, not a country of thousands or millions, will be a country of billions and trillions.”

However, the question is, to what extent does Armenia really have real economic and foreign political alternatives in the form of the West? This question becomes the watershed where pre-election rhetoric ends and cold realpolitik begins. When we put aside propaganda effects and emotional emphasis, we are forced to evaluate the situation exclusively in the language of numbers, geographical location and institutional realities. And the comparison of these data proves that at the current stage, Armenia does not have a quick and adequate economic alternative to replace Russia, while the European Union does not offer any legal or political guarantee of the upcoming membership to Armenia.

Armenia’s economic system has been built for decades by the logic of structural convergence with Russian infrastructure and the consumption market, where a possible exit from the EAEU threatens a significant percentage of goods turnover, mainly the vital branches of Armenian exports.

The European market operates with a system of strict tariff quotas, technical regulations and quality standards, which will require years of adaptation and huge capital investments from the Armenian business to comply with, and the cost of logistics to the EU is incomparably high, as there is currently no real transport substitute for the Upper Lars checkpoint.

The energy component is even more vulnerable. The impulses coming from Moscow to end the gas subsidy and raise the price to the European level ($400-600) are a direct threat to Armenia’s macroeconomic stability, and Pashinyan’s claim that this risk can be countered by the formula of “having more money” is not based on any clear economic calculation, as long as there is no peace agreement in the region and the borders are not closed.

Against this background, the prospect of joining the European Union cannot be considered as an alternative, because Brussels currently does not have an official active expansion agenda, the EU, judging by the statements, is ready to expand only financial support and deepen partnership, but the actual process of institutional membership seems vague. The experience of Turkey, Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova shows that the path from candidate status to full membership is too long and politicized, and Armenia cannot be in two different customs domains at the same time.

Exiting the EAEU will mean the automatic cancellation of the free trade regime with the Russian Federation, the economic consequences of which will be immediate, while the establishment of new economic ties with the EU will take decades. Even United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit and statements about raising relations to the level of strategic partnership have a clear geopolitical context. Washington’s priority is to launch the TRIPP route to extract resources from Central Asia, where Armenia is assigned the role of a tactical tool, but these projects do not include security or financial guarantees that will compensate for the damage caused by possible sanctions from Moscow.

For pre-election tactical reasons, the escalation of the discourse with Russia, the circulation of “espionage” agendas and “external interference” topics can provide short-term domestic political dividends and mobilize the pro-Western electorate. However, in the strategic perspective, without the formation of viable economic and political alternatives, the final rupture of relations with Moscow is fraught with irreversible losses.

The West provides political umbrella and diplomatic support, but refuses to assume the role of Armenia’s economic and security guarantor. Therefore, the choice between EAEU and EU is a false agenda in the current conditions. The EU does not expect Armenia to be part of it, and the price of leaving the EAEU, although the RA authorities declare that they do not have such an agenda, may exceed the resources of Armenia’s resistance.

—