BY DAVIT ABRAHAMYAN
Armenia is confronted with a diplomatic tug-of-war, having to choose an alliance between two regulatory superpowers, both of whom promise a secure and functioning future for the country. These systems of power have long expressed their interest in cooperation by providing timely humanitarian assistance, preventing conflicts, and supporting Armenia’s diplomatic prosperity. Although both parties have shown similarity in assisting the country’s development, their diplomatic intentions and core values differ, compelling Armenia to choose one partnership over the other. Armenia’s geopolitical realities have indicated its dependency on the neighboring powerhouse, Russia.
Since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, every Armenian president has maintained strong relations with Russia, relying on its military protection and economic stability. However, the new ruling party seeks to diversify Armenia’s international partnership by taking initiative towards strengthening ties with the European Union – straining its relationship with the dominant regional power. Armenia should deepen economic and diplomatic relations with the EU, but distancing itself from Russia would only jeopardize security guarantees the country still relies on. The question is the following: Should Armenia lean on the European Union for aid, or is remaining under the influence of the authoritative government, for the sake of protection, the answer to its modern problems?
On May 5th, Armenia officially entered into the Connectivity Partnership with the European Union, signaling its intention to diversify its economic partnership, and embarking upon a new beginning in its foreign policy. The common diplomatic perspective among both parties resulted in possible discussions of Armenia gaining EU membership – causing skepticism for Russia, and forcing the regional heavyweight to warn Armenia of the potential economic risks it may face, should it abandon its security umbrella. As tensions rose from both sides, on June 11, Armenia received the dire news of Russia embarking restrictions on Armenian imported products – exerting economic pressure on Armenia for reconsideration of its recent partnership.
Armenia currently faces significant diplomatic challenges, including its difficulty to preserve peace with Azerbaijan, lack of foreign investment in its economic affairs, and its significantly constrained representation, suggesting closer diplomatic ties with the European Union for strategic advantages. However, given Russia’s leverage over Armenia makes the latter’s integration of Western alliance difficult.
Despite their strong relations, Russia has historically ostracized Armenia from forming potential Western alliances, provided Russia a significant amount of influence in the country’s government affairs, and made them reliant on its energy resources. Any hope of Armenian westernization, with the scheduled signing of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area in 2013 came to a scandalous halt after the then president of the Republic of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan and the regional dictator Putin, the deal fell through just days before it was scheduled to be ratified.
Russia’s recent economic barrier placed upon Armenia is not merely a reaction to its superficial economic alliance – it is an attempt to discourage Armenia from aligning with European institutions, and adapting to Western ideologies, such as promotion of civil rights, international cooperation, and addressing broad humanitarian issues, all of which stand in contrast to Russia’s current governing system.
Given Armenia’s geopolitical stance and its dependence on their security, the Civil Contract’s initiative – under the rule of current Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – to drastically exclude Russian influence from Armenia, would not serve in the country’s best interest. Quite the opposite, it would potentially pose a threat to the country’s sovereignty – impacting its national security and opening the door for the inevitable Azerbaijani incursion.
Currently serving as Armenia’s protective buffer, Russia is helping deter potential aggressions imposed upon Armenian borders – a security assurance that the European Union cannot guarantee. Although Russia has posed as the guarantor of Armenia’s border protection, history has proven that to not be entirely true. In 2022, Azerbaijan imposed yet another military aggression, this time attacking the internationally recognized territory of Armenia, to which Armenia appealed to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), relying on Russia’s security assistance. Instead of providing the country with military backing, Russia took the neutral ground and simply called for deescalation of conflict, with no mention of restitutions or sanctions for Azerbaijan’s hostile actions.
During the EU-Armenia Summit in Brussels, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission emphasized that their central priority in signing the Connectivity Partnership with the Republic of Armenia is to “boost trade, create jobs, reinforce resilience, and support regional stability.” However, the EU’s economic initiative with Armenia is not merely an act of goodwill, but a strategy to establish diplomatic control in the South Caucasus – allowing them to gain influence in the area.
Despite their intention of expanding Armenia’s market, the EU does not assure any military protection under potential attacks, illustrating their disregard of Armenia’s primary threat to maintaining border stability. Even if one would believe in those fairy tales, what good would a stable economy do in the absence of sovereignty? Reliance on the European Union for a boosted trade with no protection of the homeland forces the Armenian government to forfeit their national security, for a couple of press conferences in Brussels.
Although the then leading Republican Party of Armenia – under former president Serzh Sargsyan – have historically shown support towards Russian-oriented foreign policy, the current competition of regional influence between the EU and Russia suggest maintaining neutrality. Given its geographic position, Armenia would most likely suffer significant consequences if tensions continue to rise between the two powers. Nevertheless, possessing substantial decision making power in the situation, Armenia should treat its economic alliance with the EU as complementary, impeding any diplomatic influence from the European superpower, while for a given amount of time, allowing Russia to maintain influence in South Caucasus through Armenia.
Such a strategy would give Armenia the best chance to broaden its markets with the EU while minimizing possible harm to its security interests. The ideal scenario of Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party may be portrayed as increasing strategic autonomy in the future, but for now, maintaining a balanced relationship with both powers will serve in the country’s best interest in the long run.
Serving as a crucial geopolitical crossroads in the South Caucasus that will support Russia’s diplomatic intentions of power expansion in the region, Russia will always remain Armenia’s primary security partner. On the other hand, the EU can provide domestic stability and economic benefits. Nikol Pashinyan’s initiative towards severing ties with Russia suggests his lack of strategy. Pivoting toward economic priorities while neglecting Armenia’s security can have long lasting consequences for its stability. Approaching the given diplomatic situation with reason, Nikol Pashinyan’s current best option is to keep strong relations with both powers.
Davit Abrahamyan is an Armenian National Committee of America – Western Region Summer Internship Alum.
—