Armenia's paradox: Staying or leaving CSTO and EAEU? Are ANCA, Dashnaks to blame for Pashinyan’s “tango” with Russia?

Arsen Torosyan, Armenia's former Minister of Health and a member of the ruling "Civil Contract" party, has claimed that the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), based in Washington, functions as the American branch of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation ("Dashnaktsutyun") and is engaged in activities that undermine Armenia's sovereignty and independence. Torosyan argued that the ANCA defends Armenia's dependence on Russia, promoting this narrative as a defence of national interests, patriotism, and the preservation of Armenian values. "The most ironic part of their work," Torosyan pointed out, "is that while based in Washington, they lobby for Moscow's interests."

According to Torosyan, any form of cooperation with Russia, particularly from the ANCA or "Dashnaktsutyun," is considered harmful. While I will neither confirm nor deny this view, a logical and inevitable question arises: Have the Dashnaks already come to power in Armenia? As of the writing of this piece, that is certainly not the case. If this is so, how can those with no power in Armenia be blamed for actions benefiting Russia, particularly when, under Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s rule, no tangible steps have been taken by Armenia to distance itself from Russia? I’m not talking about statements from various Armenian politicians but about concrete actions from the official government in Yerevan. Where are they? Could someone provide the full list?

No, the "freezing" of Armenia's membership in the CSTO does not need further explanation. That’s a political manoeuvre equivalent to "half-pregnancy." If Armenia’s leadership truly intended to leave the CSTO, they would have done so without any need for "freezing." Uzbekistan demonstrated how this could be done. Uzbekistan was one of the CSTO's founding members, alongside other post-Soviet states. However, in 2012, Uzbekistan withdrew from the CSTO permanently. Tashkent officially stated that the organization no longer served its national interests. This was a clear indication of the country's desire to pursue an independent foreign policy. Uzbekistan decided it was in its best interest to foster cooperation with NATO, without seeking membership in the Alliance, and to expand military relations with other countries, including China. After leaving the CSTO, Uzbekistan adopted a neutral stance on military alliances.

So, what is Armenia doing? Armenia has not only failed to leave the CSTO, but a Russian military base still remains on its territory. Additionally, Armenia has not left the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and trade between Russia and Armenia has reached a record-high turnover of $12 billion. Therefore, there is a significant discrepancy between official Yerevan's attempts to portray a confrontation with Russia and the reality on the ground.

Arsen Torosyan's speeches become even more ironic when he accuses the ANCA and the Dashnaks of supporting Russia's interests, especially when Pashinyan's Armenia is closely collaborating with Russia to its own advantage. According to the newspaper "Graparak," Pashinyan is planning to give this collaboration a fresh boost. The paper claims that in light of recent geopolitical developments, Pashinyan has directed all government departments to re-establish relations and communication with their Russian counterparts and actively engage in joint events. The article also mentions that within the "Civil Contract" party, there is anticipation of Pashinyan's visit to Russia for the May 9 celebrations in Moscow, with hopes that a meeting with the Russian leader will clarify the future of Armenia’s government.

So, should we conclude that the ANCA and Dashnaks advised Pashinyan to take such steps? Are they the ones keeping Armenia in the CSTO and EEU? Are they pushing for a surge in trade between Armenia and Russia, even facilitating the circumvention of EU and US sanctions? The answer seems clear. What follows from this is equally evident: Pashinyan and his team are once again attempting to "swerve" the situation.

This approach isn’t new. Previously, they denied the obvious — that Armenia provided political, financial, and military support to the Karabakh junta. Now, in a Baku court, former leaders of the Karabakh junta have admitted that Armenia’s current leadership continued the policies of Robert Kocharian and Serzh Sargsyan, supporting the Karabakh junta in every way. Even after the 44-day war ended and the Trilateral Statement was signed by Nikol Pashinyan on November 10, 2020, this continued.

This situation is what forced Azerbaijan to conduct an anti-terrorist operation in the Karabakh economic region, fully restoring its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Following that, official Yerevan began to "flip its position," pretending to be ready to sign a peace agreement with Azerbaijan, but without meeting the country's justified demands.

This also includes proposed amendments to Armenia’s Constitution, which clearly express territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Here, Armenia's leadership seems to be trying to manoeuvre without getting caught. This attempt, of course, is futile. Similarly, Torosyan's attempt to shift the blame for Pashinyan’s actions onto the Armenian diaspora or the Dashnaks is also doomed. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone like Torosyan were to claim that even aliens are threatening Armenia’s sovereignty and independence while working in tandem with the ANCA and the Dashnaks.