In his first post-vacation press conference, Nikol Pashinyan addressed the situation in relations with Russia with several episodes, calling it not a crisis, but an opportunity.

He announced that he will participate in the session of the EAEU intergovernmental council scheduled for August 6-7.

“The EAEU is a platform where I will raise all the issues related to our agenda. I will say what I said in the briefing. I said in the briefing that the EAEU is paralyzed. If the EAEU contract is not valid, the EAEU is not valid. And the EAEU is de facto paralyzed, and the paralysis shows tendencies to deepen. If this issue is not resolved quickly, I am 100% sure that the Republic of Armenia will overcome this problem, the EAEU will not overcome it,” Pashinyan stated.

He hinted that he is responsible for Armenia-Russia relations, not the one responsible for Armenian-Russian relations, and Armenian-Russian relations are something else, and they see that they have a different content in some places.

“As for the political component of those relations, I have already said that Armenia has decided to have alternatives, while there were none before. We are talking about not only economic, but also political alternatives,” added Pashinyan.

He noted that Armenia has signed documents on strategic relations with a number of states, while there was simply no such thing before.

“The Republic of Armenia has decided to have alternatives, including political ones. Russia sees a problem there. The problem is as follows: either the relationship is exclusive or the relationship should not be, we do not accept it. We say that relations are not exclusive, but they must exist. This is a legitimate position,” Pashinyan emphasized.

He also addressed the question of what kind of partner Armenia is for Russia, why there is no trust in Armenia. Pashinyan said what Armenia had done to whom, when Lukashenko announced who needs Armenia. “Look who needed it,” Pashinyan said.

He also clarified that there was no discussion about the railway in the conversation with Putin. “But our position is the same, it is our property, and RA should have the opportunity to use the railway as it deems appropriate. I want to be very clear about this, there is no alternative to this. That issue should be resolved, I want to be very clear. We want to solve this problem in a friendly way,” he said.

At first glance, Pashinyan’s statements show that the RA authorities will not abandon the current foreign policy course or change some decisions. These statements actually prepare Armenia’s positioning before the upcoming session of the EAEU intergovernmental council, forming the negotiation framework by which Yerevan is going to act within the union.

It is noteworthy that Pashinyan uses two messages at the same time. On the one hand, he declares that the EAEU is “paralyzed” and, if the contractual clauses do not work, then the whole union does not work either.

On the other hand, he does not talk about withdrawing from the EAEU or reviewing the participation, but on the contrary, he announces that he will personally participate in the session and will raise all the issues on that platform. This dual approach suggests that Yerevan’s goal at this stage is not to abandon the integration structure, but to use political and legal pressure mechanisms within it to advance its own agenda.

However, Pashinyan’s next statement about “alternatives” was more remarkable. Although it is not yet clear what alternatives will be formed for Armenia, and if the European market is opening up to Armenia, why is the Armenian side asking Russia to remove economic restrictions, the RA authorities continue to show that they are following the path of political, economic and security diversification.

However, the key question arises here. How compatible is this approach with the current logic of the EAEU? Although the union is officially an economic structure, the political factor within it has always had a crucial importance. Russia, being the largest economy and the main political center of the Union, naturally expects not only economic but also strategic mutual trust in relations with the member states.

That is why Yerevan’s emphasis on “political alternatives” is often perceived in Moscow not as a manifestation of a sovereign foreign policy, but as a consistent policy of limiting Russia’s influence.

Against this background, the session of the EAEU intergovernmental council on August 6-7 can become not only a platform for discussing the economic agenda, but also another political test of Armenian-Russian relations.

As a matter of fact, Pashinyan has already publicly formulated the demands with which he will appear at the session and in the absence of consensus, he will continue to raise the issues, damaging the reputation of the EAEU.

At the same time, one cannot ignore the domestic political addressee of Pashinyan’s statements.

The wording “EEU is paralyzed” is not only an external stimulus to Moscow, but also an attempt to justify to the Armenian public why Armenia is continuously deepening its relations with other international actors.

In other words, Pashinyan is trying to present the need for multi-vector foreign policy not as an ideological choice, but as a forced consequence of the situation when the existing integration mechanisms, according to Yerevan, no longer ensure the protection of Armenia’s economic interests.

It is in this context that Pashinyan’s statement of not calling the situation in relations with Russia a “crisis” but an “opportunity” should be considered. That wording probably reflects Yerevan’s calculation that the current tension can be used to try to form a new model of relations and find new markets.

The question is whether such a balance is equally acceptable for Moscow, as the Russian policy of recent years shows that the Kremlin continues to consider the economic and political components in post-Soviet integration projects as interconnected and difficult to separate from each other elements.

The answer to this question is more than simple, but it is still not clear what “potential” this crisis has to deepen.

—