168: Pashinyan’s double message in Cholpon-Ata. will Russia accept it?

The session of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council, held on August 6-7 in Cholpon-Ata, Kyrgyzstan, took place in the conditions of one of the most tense stages in relations between Armenia and Russia in recent months.

Nikol Pashinyan’s participation in this event was perhaps the main intrigue, as the latter promised to address the economic restrictions applied against Armenia and the issue that the EAEU is not functioning. However, Cholpon-Ata showed the depth of contradictions and the hardness of positions. Yerevan does not consider EAEU as an unexamined and self-sufficient system of relations, and Moscow, in turn, expects clarification of Armenia’s position, especially regarding the direction of European integration.

Pashinyan’s participation in the meeting was preceded by a telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin on July 27, which was held at the initiative of the Armenian side.

In that conversation, according to the Kremlin’s report, Putin reaffirmed Russia’s commitment to the provisions of the May 29 joint declaration of the EAEU Astana summit. In particular, we are talking about the need to hold a referendum on EU membership in Armenia. At the same time, Pashinyan raised the issue of restrictions applied by Russia to Armenian products, considering them to be contrary to the Armenian-Russian legal contract base and EAEU rules.

Thus, the agendas of both parties were actually on different levels. Moscow talks about the strategic choice of Armenia, Yerevan about the fulfillment of economic obligations within the EAEU. After this phone conversation, Pashinyan’s wording in Yerevan was sharp, he declared that if the issue related to the export of Armenian products is not resolved quickly, it could become the “end of the beginning” of EAEU, claiming that the created situation shows the failure of the Union’s mechanisms.

However, Pashinyan’s rhetoric changed to a certain extent in his speech at the session of the EAEU intergovernmental council in Cholpon-Ata. If a few days ago it was about the EAEU’s “paralysis” and even harsh predictions about its future, then at the session of the intergovernmental council, Pashinyan addressed the efficiency of the union’s work in a critical tone and stated that strengthening cooperation with the EAEU countries is one of the priorities of Armenia’s foreign and economic policy. He also explained that it does not make sense to hold a referendum on the issue of EU membership in Armenia, because that issue does not exist yet.

With Cholpon-Ata’s speech, Pashinyan tried to continue the previous political line, claiming that Armenia is creating alternatives for itself, which it has a legitimate right to, and the EAEU is one of the priorities.

Pashinyan once again tried to make it clear that EAEU is an economic union, its rules should also apply in cases when economic and political relations with the given country become complicated, therefore, if this continues, a crisis will be created in the structure. Although the Russian side, for its part, has been insisting from time to time that there will be a decline in trade turnover between Armenia and Russia, in the conditions of a change in Armenia’s foreign economic and political direction. According to Alexey Overchuk, the bilateral trade, which reached about 12 billion dollars in 2024, decreased to about 8 billion dollars in 2025, and in 2026 the decline deepened.

Russia’s response in Cholpon-Ata, however, was also remarkable and indirect. Mikhail Mishustin, speaking about the general economic condition of the EAEU, emphasized not the crisis, but the positive dynamics of the union’s economic indicators, noting the growth of GDP, industry, agriculture, retail trade and mutual trade.

No representative from the EAEU intergovernmental council responded to the questions raised by Pashinyan. However, Mishustin hinted with his emphasis that the Russian side does not accept the opinion that the existing problems with Armenia indicate the systemic failure of the EAEU as a whole.

Next to the economic contradiction, there is a deeper geopolitical problem. In Cholpon-Ata, Pashinyan clearly stated that Armenia understands that it is not possible to join the EAEU and the European Union at the same time. At the same time, he emphasized that Armenia’s adoption of the law on starting the process of joining the EU does not mean that Armenia can currently become a member of the EU.

This wording creates an intermediate policy for Yerevan: not to abandon the EAEU, but also not to close the European direction. This is the main contradiction of Armenian-Russian relations. Yerevan is trying to maintain the widest possible maneuver space between the two directions, while Moscow is gradually trying to limit that space, demanding a clearer answer: EAEU or EU. It is noteworthy that the leaders of Russia and other EAEU members had already raised the issue of the referendum in the May Astana statement, and in the July 27 Pashinyan-Putin conversation, it appeared again on the agenda.

In this situation, the Cholpon-Ata meeting can be considered not as a sign of the resolution of Armenian-Russian relations, but as an indicator of continuing the phase of uncertainty. The RA authorities are trying to show that they do not accept an ultimatum, and Russia expects the RA authorities to abandon the European integration agenda in order to return to normal relations.

Therefore, the main issue of the coming months will remain the same: if one of the parties does not reciprocate, the relations will inevitably break down.

Cholpon-Ata was important in this sense precisely because of its contradiction. And here, at the current stage of Armenian-Russian relations, the main contradiction is no longer only the choice of “Russia or the West”, but whether it is possible to maintain long-term economic integration in a system with deep political contradictions with its main member.

—