Armenia’s former Security Council Secretary Armen Grigoryan has argued that pursuing EU membership is unrealistic and risks deepening Armenia’s dependence on Russia rather than reducing it. The op-ed comes as Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan says that Yerevan could formally apply to join the EU in 2027 or 2028.
Some in Armenia, such as Hakob Kareptyan who served as Yerevan’s former Mayor’s spokesperson, interpreted Grigoryan’s article criticising the very administration that he once served as an attempt to position himself as an opposition figure.
Grigoryan was one of the few Armenian officials to keep his post following the 2018 Velvet Revolution, remaining in Pashinyan’s government until 2026. He was later replaced by former Parliamentary Speaker Alen Simonyan, who failed to secure enough support from the ruling Civil Contract party to retain the position following the June elections.
In an extensive op-ed published on Medialab, titled ‘The illusion of EU membership’, Grigoryan responded to comments by Republic Party leader Aram Sargsyan, an ally of Pashinyan, who had questioned how Grigoryan could compare dependence on the EU with dependence on Russia.
The article also came amid discussions by the Constitutional Council of a Republic Party proposal to include EU membership in Armenia’s draft Constitution.
Grigoryan claimed that his position on the matter was well known to his ‘former colleagues’, and added that Armenia often confuses its aspirations with what is realistically achievable.
In response to Grigoryan, Sona Ghazaryan, the ruling Civil Contract party’s Deputy Chair of Standing Committee on European Integration, called the analysis ‘healthy criticism that could spark public debate’.
She went on to defend Armenia’s European course, arguing that the EU had clearly responded to Armenia’s needs in recent years and describing the prospect of submitting an EU membership application as ‘a rational position’.
Griogoryan said in the op-ed that ‘when assessing Armenia’s prospects of joining the EU, we must take into account a number of political, geographical, and economic factors that make this goal unrealistic. And this is where my main concern lies: what will happen if Armenia continues pursuing a goal that, in essence, has no realistic prospect of being achieved? In my view, every new step taken along this path does not reduce Armenia’s dependence on Russia but deepens it’, Grigoryan wrote.
He argued that since independence, previous attempts to move Armenia closer to the West had repeatedly triggered Russian pressure and increased dependence on Moscow, including through Armenia’s membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), which it joined as a founding member in 1992, and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which it joined in 2015.
‘Today, the same history appears to be repeating itself, but under a much more dangerous scenario. Alongside discussions and steps towards EU membership, I see a growing threat of Armenia being drawn into the Russia–Belarus Union State’, Grigoryan wrote.
According to Grigoryan, Armenia’s room to manoeuvre to reduce its dependence on Russia had narrowed since the adoption of the law seeking EU accession in March 2025.
Since the law’s adoption, he claimed that: ‘Russia’s political, cultural, and economic presence in Armenia became increasingly visible. The number of votes received by pro-Russian political forces rose from 330,000 to 546,000, Rossotrudnichestvo initiated the opening of new Russian Houses in Armenia’s regions, the Russian option for building a new nuclear power plant could no longer be ruled out, and Russia’s involvement in the construction of the Ajapnyak metro station in Yerevan was already being discussed.
‘A symbolic but telling _expression_ of this trend was that the chairmanship of the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on European Integration ended up in the hands of a pro-Russian force’. Pursuing EU membership has ‘sharply exacerbated Armenian–Russian relations’, he said, adding that without Western security guarantees ‘Armenia’s state immune system is simply unable to withstand Moscow’s economic, political, and hybrid pressures’.
He described Iran as ‘not simply a neighbour for Armenia; it is a vital lifeline’, warning that aligning with EU sanctions on Russia and Iran could damage relations with both countries.
Grigoryan insists on his position against reliance on an external patron, citing Armenia’s previous experience with overdependence on Russia, and argues that ‘the unrealistic EU membership agenda is once again pushing Armenia towards the same dead end’.
Armenia and Russia have openly disagreed over the former’s bid for EU membership, with Russia doubling down on its demand for Armenia to hold a referendum choosing between the EU and the EAEU, while Armenia insists the issue is yet ‘premature’.
Grigoryan warned that a prolonged accession process could leave Armenia caught between economic blocs, losing access to Russian energy resources and markets without securing viable alternatives, potentially pushing it towards even greater dependence on Moscow.
He also questioned whether pursuing EU membership would necessarily strengthen democracy in Armenia, arguing that democratic progress following the 2018 Velvet Revolution had slowed, with stagnation and even regression in some areas.
He warned that the EU integration agenda could make civil society ‘more tolerant’ of abuses by political forces advocating membership, with violations overlooked or justified in the name of geopolitical goals.
‘The result is that we are putting the genuine democracy achieved through Armenia’s 2018 Revolution at risk in favour of a mythical form of democracy associated with EU membership’, the op-ed read.
—