The recent tensions and diplomatic rearrangements in Armenian-Russian relations continue to be at the core of the political agenda. The statements made after the Moscow meeting of the leaders of Armenia and Russia at the beginning of May regarding the possible resumption of military-technical cooperation raise new questions. Parallel to them, the restrictions applied to Armenian products in the Russian market, in particular, “Jermuk” and the theses about “civilized demarriage” sounding from Moscow circles suggest deep and complex processes.
Is official Yerevan changing the foreign political vector, or is what is being done purely in the logic of tactical steps? What messages does the Kremlin send to the authorities of Armenia, and what is the price of a possible break in relations with Russia? On these and other key topics VERELQtalked to a political analyst Hakob Badalyan with.
Hakob Badalyan is in the photo, source: yerkir.am
VERELQ. Mr. Badalyan, after his visit to Moscow and meeting with Vladimir Putin on May 8, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan announced that Armenia and Russia agreed to resume military-technical cooperation in certain directions, without going into details. Taking into account the tension of recent years and the well-known problems related to the supply of weapons from Russia, what does this statement and agreement indicate from a purely political point of view? Does this mean that the Armenian-Russian military-technical cooperation is reviving?
Hakob Badalyan. If this statement is really followed by practical steps, and if this was not just a situational move aimed at dispelling the concerns of the Armenian public about the deterioration of relations with the Russian Federation (which are directly related to economic and social problems), then we can record that this period of pause or idleness is coming to an end, and we are returning to a cooperative regime. In any case, since there were no objections or denials from Moscow, it is quite possible that the parties really discussed specific details.
It is clear that this gap in the past period was largely due to the fact that Russia directed all its resources to meet its own military needs. Now, it is possible that this acute demand on the Ukrainian front has somewhat decreased. On the other hand, Russia has recently multiplied the production volumes and rates of its military industry, which has opened up new opportunities for export as well.
VERELQ. It is understandable. In this context, let’s also refer to other recent developments. Against the background of the summit of the European political community and especially the trilateral meeting of Armenia-EU-USA on April 5, we saw rather harsh reactions of Russia. This was followed by the incident related to “Jermuk” mineral water, when the sale of a large batch was suddenly banned in the Russian Federation, allegedly due to phytosanitary problems. Considering that “Jermuk” is not only a well-known brand, but also its owner is considered a businessman with close ties to the current authorities, is this a purely economic issue or is it a clear political impulse aimed at the authorities of Armenia?
Hakob Badalyan. In the case of Russia, of course, it is very difficult to believe that such decisions are made purely based on phytosanitary considerations. When such partial, targeted restrictions are applied, they most likely have political motives. In my estimation, ahead of the geopolitical realignments and the upcoming pre-election phase in Armenia, Russia is simply trying to raise the price of its interests with concrete actions.
Seeing how other major players are taking a direct and open role in Armenia’s political processes, Moscow is trying to keep up. With concrete steps aimed at protecting his interests, he shows Yerevan that his warnings are not only verbal, and he will not hesitate to resort to painful actions. I think that this impulse is hidden behind the “Jermuk” case, and the fact that you mentioned that the owners of the company are among the big businessmen who work closely with the current government of Armenia is not a coincidence either.
VERELQ. And how are these harsh impulses of the Russian side and steps to increase the price of their own interests perceived in official Yerevan? Does the leadership of Armenia, which has recently been actively talking about diversification and looking for new security partners (for example, France, India), read those messages correctly?
Hakob Badalyan. If we are guided by the assumption that common sense has not yet left official Yerevan (and I am inclined to think that it has not, at least for now), then all of that is certainly taken into account. I am of the opinion that the impression of anti-Russianness in Yerevan’s policy is only tactical in nature and has not yet crossed the strategic red lines.
Yes, Russia regularly, especially now, in the conditions of these high stakes, reminds with concrete actions that crossing those strategic lines will have very serious consequences for Armenia. But, in my estimation, Yerevan has not yet crossed that line and, at least, I don’t see any significant intention to cross it yet.
VERELQ. Another remarkable episode. Recently, the Russian leadership and official circles have frequently discussed the topic of a possible break in Armenian-Russian relations. Reference is made both to Yerevan’s European integration aspirations and to the holding of a possible referendum. Even in open text, it is said that if Armenia really wants to go to the European Union, then it can be formulated as “elegant” or “civilized disobedience”. What do you think speaking in such an open text for the first time indicates?
Hakob Badalyan. I think this rhetoric also fits into the logic I mentioned: to raise the price of Russian interests in Armenia’s internal political and pre-election processes. Of course, there may be different nuances in the details, but the general goal is exactly that.
A lot will depend on further developments: how will the political processes in Armenia go, and what will be the behavior of the current government in the context of the election results? Will official Yerevan try to ensure the preservation of power at any cost, or will it come to terms with reality in case of an unfavorable result? Basically, Russia’s message, which was also noticeable in the footnotes of the official meetings, is that Moscow will reconcile with any result of the Armenian people’s election, if it is achieved in a legitimate electoral struggle. However, it is expected that Yerevan will also have to come to terms with that result, even if it implies the loss of power for Nikol Pashinyan.
VERELQ. Going back to the last point you mentioned and the idea of ”civilized divorce”. Considering the deep dependence of our economy on the Russian market, energy carriers and infrastructure, does Armenia today have the resources and is it ready for a final showdown with Russia? And is Russia ready to let us go in a “civilized” way?
Hakob Badalyan. Again, if we rely on common sense, Armenia has reason to be seriously concerned here. Regardless of whether this divorce will be “civilized” or not, it will seriously and very painfully hit Armenia’s socio-economic capabilities and vital interests. This will directly mean that Armenia will become much more vulnerable to Azerbaijan and Turkey, both in terms of economic needs and, therefore, in terms of political and security.
Therefore, we should not be interested in whether Russia is ready for a civilized divorce, but we should do everything so that the situation does not reach that fateful point. At the moment, Armenia has no tangible dividends or equivalent alternatives in any other direction that would compensate for these huge losses. Instead, in the event of such a rupture, we will receive challenges of a much tougher and completely new nature.
—