Ursula von der Leyen’s visit did not bring financial and economic comfort to the CP. Promises abounded, but actual support far less. Artak Zakaryan, a member of the RPA executive body, wrote about this.

“Economics versus politics

As predicted (I wrote about it 20 days ago), having realized the harmful consequences of his next unpromising actions, Nikol has again appeared in Russia. But not at a high level, in official Moscow, but in the format of the “Innoprom-2026” exhibition in Yekaterinburg. I’m sure he went to beg and look for ways back to Moscow.

Ursula von der Leyen’s visit did not bring financial and economic comfort to the CP. Promises abounded, but actual support was scant. In addition, Europe is already very supportive of the CP to “win” the elections at any cost and continue to repress the political opposition. So that Pashinyan has nothing to be angry about from the EU, they help him to the maximum in order to keep the power and cover up the loss of Artsakh.

Today, the number one pressing question of the EU is whether Nikol will be able to follow the path of complete rupture.

The problem is that Armenia’s economy is significantly more dependent on Russia than Moldova’s, and besides, Armenia does not have a common border with the European Union. The RA MFA does not hide that for the time being they would like to maintain beneficial economic relations with Moscow, at the same time moving away from it in the security sphere.

Judging by the already war-threatening situation between the EU (NATO) and the Russian Federation, Nikol’s western partners will hurry him up even more in the near future and will not allow him to “sit on two chairs”. (Alen of Aghdam heard the call, became the first swallow-“victim” of this policy)

In this matter, the EU’s Eastern Partnership has relentless experience.

We’ve seen Ukraine, we’ve seen Moldova, we’ve seen Georgia before, where economic benefits from ties with Russia didn’t play a role in political choices. When the choice is made in favor of Russia’s opponents, the socio-economic interests of these countries are pushed into the background. Why?

Because the regimes brought to power in those countries, as well as in Armenia, had and have one goal. to ensure the role of “victim” of EU-Russia conflicts and, if necessary, also of war, for the sake of EU security and well-being.

Our friend Georgia, after its own experience, refuses to go through the same path a second time.

Along with the current issue of the EU, for us Armenians, against the background of anti-Russian sentiment, the question “Are they taking us to Europe or Turkey?” is becoming more relevant.

Perhaps the most pressing question for discussion is whether the announced “movement” towards Europe does not actually cover up the Turkish program and the Turkishization of Armenia.”

—