Political loyalty in exchange for the economy. Armenian-Russian negotiations

In the Russian direction, Nikol Pashinyan’s first post-election visit took place to Yekaterinburg, where he and Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin participated in the “Innoprom” international industrial forum on July 6.

A month has passed since the Armenian parliamentary elections held on June 7, but the lack of official congratulations from the Kremlin remains one of the most remarkable details of the agenda of Armenian-Russian relations, turning into a demonstrative gesture of diplomatic “silence”.

Along with the economic restrictions and harsh rhetoric applied to Armenia during the pre-election campaign, this demonstrative “indifference” of Russia to the results of the elections seems to be a signal that Moscow is waiting for Yerevan’s next steps, still not agreeing to accept the elections held in Armenia, as well as the foreign policy conducted by the RA authorities.

However, it seems that the visit to Yekaterinburg and the meeting with Mishustin was not enough, because days have passed since the visit, but there seems to be no change in Russia’s decisions.

Recently, during the briefing following the Government session, Nikol Pashinyan referred to the meeting with Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin held in Yekaterinburg.

He mentioned that he had an open, sincere and friendly discussion with the head of the government of the Russian Federation. “A number of agreements have been reached, the details of which I do not want to publish at the moment. Let’s wait for them to be implemented, and you will see the results yourself,” said Pashinyan. We wrote earlier that at that meeting, the Russian side stood out for its reserved, cold, pragmatic attitude towards the Armenian delegation.

However, the contacts that took place in Yekaterinburg actually recorded the existing gulf rather than outlined the ways to overcome it.

The negotiations behind closed doors have turned into a complex and contradictory dialogue, where the economic agenda is regularly overshadowed by fundamental political demands. For Moscow, economic cooperation has long ceased to be a purely pragmatic issue. it is considered as an indicator of Yerevan’s political loyalty and strategic orientation.

The Russian side makes it clear that any economic “package” or privilege should be based on the revision of the foreign policy course by the Armenian authorities, which, however, contradicts the practice adopted by the official Yerevan.

While Moscow is waiting for obvious manifestations of political “obedience”, Yerevan continues to consistently follow the path of diversification and balancing announced by the authorities. This strategic breakdown has led to a stalemate where reaching a consensus becomes almost impossible.

The “non-recognition” of the election results by the Russian Federation has turned into a unique leverage. The Kremlin, using this silence, is trying to exert psychological and economic pressure on the authorities of Armenia, forcing them to make a foreign policy choice: either towards the West, or towards the Eurasian Economic Union and Russia.

As a result, Pashinyan’s words about “friendly discussions” and “unpublished agreements” at this stage seem more like attempts at diplomatic restraint than signs of a real breakthrough. There is a situation when the parties speak different languages. Yerevan tries to separate economy from politics, and Moscow refuses to discuss economic issues without political guarantees.

The lack of official congratulations from Moscow is not a temporary protocol failure, but a political decision with the aim of showing that the “new reality” in Armenia is unacceptable to the Russian elite.

Under these conditions, Russia continues to use its influence levers, trying to return Armenia to its sphere of influence, and Yerevan is trying to find new political and economic trusts. Armenian-Russian relations have reached a diplomatic impasse, where the incompatibility of political expectations between the parties does not allow moving to a practical agenda, leading to an unprecedented stagnation of relations.

—