The Armenian-Russian agenda under the “either-or” principle. What did Pashinyan-Mishus solve?

During the last two months, the deep and systemic crisis in Armenian-Russian relations, which is accompanied by harsh rhetoric, serious economic restrictions, and interruption of normal political dialogue, has reached an unprecedented tension point.

Against this background, the day before Nikol Pashinyan’s visit to Yekaterinburg and the meeting with the Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin was an attempt not only to participate in the bilateral economic agenda, but also to restore the dialogue and prevent the further deepening of the crisis of relations by focusing on the issue of solving the economic problems that have arisen.

Pashinyan spoke about the “problematic issues” that have arisen in relations, stating that he expects to “discuss and resolve” them, and Mikhail Mishustin stated that Russia expects the development of Armenian-Russian relations “in the spirit of friendship, neighborliness, mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests.”

Pashinyan also assured that Armenia is committed to the further development of relations with Russia both before and after the elections. “And, of course, we are interested in our participation in the EAEU and ensuring that the mechanisms provided for in the EAEU agreement work as intended,” he said.

Mishustin also emphasized that it is important for the Armenian government to continue creating a comfortable environment for Russian investors. According to him, Moscow expects that their rights and legal interests will be respected.

The closed part of the meeting, the negotiations lasted one and a half hours. However, the main question remains open. Did this meeting in Yekaterinburg become the beginning of the restoration of relations, normalization, or was it just a diplomatic pause without a political solution to the deep Armenian-Russian contradictions?

168.amin a conversation with Russian analyst Alexander Khramchikhin said that he does not think that the visit actually led to a serious unloading of bilateral relations, because the existing contradictions between Moscow and Yerevan remain fundamental and unchanged.

According to him, Russia does not separate politics and economy, it considers them in one system, whereas the Armenian side currently wants to maintain economic cooperation with the Russian Federation, that is, privileges, benefits without a political component, as it declares its desire for European integration.

“For Moscow, the issue is the “either-or” principle, requiring Armenia to specify its political vector, because it is not possible to simply combine the EAEU and the European Union. Therefore, if the political orientation is towards the EU, then the economy too, it is assumed that one day it will turn to the other side, so today the EAEU membership of RA is a temporary circumstance that solves the current economic problem.

On the other hand, Russia perceives the EU as a security and integration threat,” he said.

Khramchikhin recalled the recent high-level European visit to Armenia.

“The recent visit of Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, to Yerevan proved that everything is very serious in the relations between Armenia and the EU. Therefore, in case of such systemic, deep-seated political disagreement, I do not think that the visit and meeting with Mishustin solves a serious political problem. It is more likely to think that it solves the issue of the continuation of the dialogue, but the deep contradictions and the political problem remain,” he said.

As a result, according to Khramchikhin, this visit should be considered not as a resolution of the crisis, but as a tactical step to postpone the escalation and alleviate the economic problems.

“However, in the political sphere, Armenia’s activity towards Europe and Russia’s demand to Armenia create a field of contradictions, where diplomatic rhetoric can no longer mask the difficult situation. One of the future milestones of Armenian-Russian relations may be the final rupture, if one of the parties does not make concessions. However, it seems unlikely at the moment,” said Russian analyst Alexander Khramchikhin.

—