For several years now, Armenia’s political course has been constantly changing from a pro-Russian to a pro-Western direction. On April 5 in Brussels, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen met with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, during which they discussed security guarantees for Armenia, the conditions for its integration into NATO and issues of accession to the European Union.
Asked what that shift could mean for Armenia, IA Krasnaya Vesna He addressed the political scientist, doctor of Sociological Sciences and professor at the Institute of Sociology and Regional Studies (ISiR) of the Southern Federal University (SFU), Maxim Vaskov.
IA Krasnaya Vesna: Maxim Alexandrovich, what does “European integration” mean for Armenia?
Maxim Vaskov: In this issue there is ideology and expectations, but there is also an objective reality, based on the political interests of the European Union as a whole, of certain interest groups within it and the geopolitical context.
The ideology of European integration, as displayed in Armenia, is “the path to salvation and prosperity in the family of European nations.” The Armenian side was promised literally everything they wanted to hear, and they would even give something. In a part of Armenian society and in the ruling political elite, the break with Russia is perceived simply with euphoria and joyful emotion. In Russia they see it with regret, they consider this development of events to be negative in principle, but they do not see anything particularly catastrophic. The Russian economy will survive the closure of the Armenian market.
As for Armenia, the funding that the Armenian side will receive from the EU seems significant. But in the context of the breakdown of relations with Russia, the rest of the countries of the Eurasian Economic Community and Iran, the loss of their markets is an economic collapse. There was a time when this happened to Ukraine. Indeed, when the intoxication of the promised pleasures of “European civilization” came with a hangover of economic calculations and an understanding of the catastrophic nature of losses, Viktor Yanukovych did not sign up to European integration.
Russia will defend its economy and Armenia, as already a member of the EU, will have to join the anti-Russian sanctions and will receive Russian counter-sanctions in response. The EU will demand the end of Armenia’s special relations with Iran and full compliance with sanctions against Iran.
As soon as Armenia breaks relations with Russia, it will receive an ultimatum and submit to everything the West says, there will be no other option. In Armenia they talk about special conditions and preferences, but they promise them, they even write something in the contracts and then review them. And the Armenian leadership will certainly agree with this, and that’s basically it.
Indeed, why should Armenia be granted, in reality, and not in words, special conditions that the EU does not offer to other countries? Furthermore, Georgia and Ukraine are on track to achieve this. The precedent for Europe is dangerous, but if it destabilizes the political and economic situation in the EU, then at this stage it is likely to be beneficial for Russia. I think that farmers in Poland and southern European countries are already “happy” with Armenian fruits; will “understand” the loss of additional market share; after all, they are “friends of Armenia.”
Currently, the EU takes an absolutely anti-Russian position and is waging various forms of hybrid war against us. In this sense, weakening the European Union in any form, including by integrating countries with controversial issue packages, dispersing its resources is generally good for Russia.
IA Krasnaya Vesna: How realistic can this path of “European integration” be, given the existing threats and the current state of Europe?
Maxim Vaskov: The path is quite realistic, but its results will be “very interesting” in the general geopolitical context and, unfortunately, negative for Armenia. It will be entirely in the context of Türkiye’s geopolitical projects as NATO’s main force. Armenia’s hopes for France are generally unrealistic. Emmanuel Macron’s neo-napartism is quite comical, although it can cause a lot of problems. Armenia believes that the NATO umbrella will provide them with real security guarantees. Whose? From Turkey, NATO’s strongest country in the region and a full member of the alliance?
The French actively promote Armenia’s problems and solve its internal political image problems, supplying military scrap metal, which was not even suitable for its Ukrainian partners. The fact that in Armenia they are beginning to perceive the geopolitical reality not as it is, but as they want to see it, is a problem.
Not long ago, John Bolton, as national security advisor to US President Donald Trump, clearly described not only the partisan position of the Republicans and their boss, but, in general, the West’s strategy towards the region. If we summarize what he said, we get the following image. Türkiye is the most important ally and the dominant power along with Azerbaijan. Armenia needs to completely submit to them, changing its narrative and foreign policy. Changing the narratives means abandoning, first of all, the accusations against Turkey about the genocide of the Armenian people, losing historical memory and identity, formally maintaining the attributes of statehood, and losing sovereignty in favor of Turkey and Azerbaijan.
If Armenia breaks with Russia and Iran, there will be no restraining force left for Turkey and Azerbaijan in their power politics.
Let us not forget that the EU, which is in a deep economic and demographic crisis, will not mind extracting the resources it needs from Armenia. Not too many, but still.
The most interesting thing, of course, is the demographic resource: a people with a high cultural level, educated, who can easily integrate into the society of Western countries. But in fact, for the Republic of Armenia this will be an irreparable loss. The choice, of course, lies with the Armenian people, but severing relations with countries with which they have centuries of shared history for the benefit of those who, at the expense of the Armenian people, solve their problems and strive to make Armenia is an instrument in war with Russia and Iran, how reasonable is this?
Source: Rossa Primavera
I am Michael Melvin, an experienced news writer with a passion for uncovering stories and bringing them to the public. I have been working in the news industry for over five years now, and my work has been published on multiple websites. As an author at 24 News Reporters, I cover world section of current events stories that are both informative and captivating to read.