Analyst explains why Russia is in no rush to remove Armenia from CSTO

Russia is in no hurry to expel Armenia from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), preferring to keep relations at an impasse rather than escalate tensions amid wider geopolitical uncertainty, political analyst Stepan Danielyan told Panorama.am on Thursday.

At a Nov. 11 summit in Moscow, CSTO member states decided to suspend Armenia’s voting rights and its ability to nominate candidates for senior positions within the organization. The decision was based on Article 25 of the CSTO Charter, which provides for such measures when a member state fails to pay its membership fees for two consecutive years.

Armenia suspended its participation in the organization in February 2024 and stopped paying its membership fees but has not formally applied for withdrawal from the Russian-led security bloc.

Danielyan described the move as largely procedural, saying Moscow had opted to freeze the situation rather than take steps that could further strain relations.

“Suspending Armenia’s voting rights essentially amounts to freezing the situation without escalating it, while still taking some action. As far as I understand, neither the CSTO nor Russia wanted to aggravate tensions. They want to keep relations on hold and see how developments in Ukraine unfold and how the situation surrounding Iran evolves,” he said.

The analyst said the decision would have little practical effect on Armenia, which had already suspended its participation in CSTO meetings and decision-making processes.

“Armenia’s voting rights would be restored once it pays its membership fees. In any case, the country had already frozen its participation and was no longer attending meetings or taking part in decision-making,” Danielyan said.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan recently announced that Armenia “has lost interest in the CSTO”, while Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan said the country would not return to the organization. Danielyan described these statements as contradictory, arguing that a firm decision to leave should be followed by a formal withdrawal request.

“If Armenia has no intention of returning and sees no further role for itself in the organization, the solution is straightforward: it should formally apply to withdraw from the CSTO. But if the matter is settled, why has no such application been submitted? Why does Armenia remain a member, albeit in an effectively sidelined position?” he said.

Danielyan questioned the credibility of official statements that were not backed by concrete action, adding that the position of Armenia’s current leadership should not necessarily be equated with the long-term interests of the state.

“Declarations carry little credibility when they are not followed by action. I would not attach too much importance to such statements, particularly since Armenia as a state is one thing and its current government is another. We do not know what decisions a future government might make,” he said.

Danielyan attributed Russia’s reluctance to expel Armenia primarily to strategic considerations and the potential consequences for the South Caucasus.

“Armenia is the only CSTO member in the South Caucasus. If it also leaves the organization or is expelled, the region’s security architecture will be left hanging in the air. In such circumstances, another power inevitably steps in to fill the vacuum. Russia is in no hurry to expel Armenia and is waiting to see how events unfold, because the South Caucasus could otherwise come entirely under Western influence,” he said.

He argued that the region’s future security arrangements would largely depend on the outcome of Russian-U.S. negotiations over Ukraine, from which Europe has effectively been sidelined.

“An agreement on Ukraine would also amount to an agreement on Europe’s security architecture. This is not just about Ukraine; it will also have implications for the situation surrounding Iran,” Danielyan said.

He noted that Iran, which is itself facing a conflict, considers the emergence of a third power in the region a red line for its national security.

According to Danielyan, Armenia’s leadership is also aware of the geopolitical risks and has limited alternatives.

“We have seen where Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO have led: the very existence of the state is now in question. We also remember what happened in Georgia in 2008. The same could happen to Armenia, and I hope the current authorities understand at least that much,” he said.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said that Armenia continues to retain its right to collective security. Danielyan, however, argued that security guarantees provided by military alliances are increasingly uncertain, including those offered by NATO.

“Even in Europe, there are discussions about whether the United States would come to the defense of a European NATO member if it were attacked by Russia and whether Washington would be prepared to risk a nuclear war. In other words, Articles 4 and 5 of the NATO treaty are also being called into question, not just the CSTO’s guarantees,” he said.

“Security systems around the world have largely exhausted their capacity and continue to function by inertia. The international community needs to find new solutions,” he added.

A day after Armenia’s voting rights were suspended, Belarusian Foreign Minister Maxim Ryzhenkov called Armenia a “fake ally” and suggested restricting its access to the CSTO’s classified documents.

Danielyan cautioned against interpreting Ryzhenkov’s remarks as the position of the entire alliance. He also said he did not expect the CSTO decision to set a precedent for Armenia’s relations with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

“Other CSTO members, particularly Kazakhstan, have different positions. It would be wrong to suggest that all member states are hostile toward Armenia. I would not say there is a consensus within the organization on this issue. There are also personal disagreements between the Belarusian and Armenian leaders,” he said.