CSTO faces internal crisis amid Armenia's withdrawal from budget Experts discuss Armenia's de-facto exit

Recently, Armenia officially notified the Secretariat of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) that it will not sign the organization's 2024 budget, meaning the country has no financial obligations towards the structure.

"The Republic of Armenia has officially notified the CSTO Secretariat that it will refrain from signing the CSTO Collective Security Council's decision 'On the CSTO Budget 2024' and from participating in the financing of the organization's activities as stipulated by the decision. Consequently, the Republic of Armenia has not undertaken any obligations regarding the financing stipulated by the mentioned decision," stated the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Earlier the Russian Foreign Ministry stated that Moscow proceeds from the assumption that Yerevan still has financial obligations under the CSTO Charter. This decision indicates Armenia's de facto exit from the CSTO. They are not paying membership fees and are publicly refusing to participate in any maneuvers and meetings of the top leadership. The question is, what is the future of this organization in such a situation? After all, Armenia's example may raise doubts among other participants of this bloc about the advisability of its preservation. How are things now? Does the CSTO have a future?

Foreign experts from the member countries of the organization shared their views on the issue with Caliber.Az.

Kazakh political scientist and scholar Zhaksylyk Sabitov stated that, in his opinion, Armenia will not actually leave the military bloc but will continue making gestures in this regard. "That is, these actions will be perceived as demarches. For example, it will not pay membership fees, will stop sending its representatives to exercises and various forums, but I don't think anyone intends to officially leave the organization," the scholar noted.

He added that the future of the CSTO heavily depends on the outcome of the war in Ukraine. "If Russia wins, or Ukraine, or if the sides manage to reach some kind of truce – these will all be different scenarios for the development of this organization," Sabitov underlined.

Tajik political scientist Parviz Mullojanov, on the other hand, is confident that Armenia's decision to refuse financing the CSTO's activities is another step towards the country's exit from the bloc.

"In my opinion, the decision to leave the CSTO has already been made, and Armenia is consistently moving in this direction. Accordingly, Armenia's exit from the CSTO is a sign of a deep internal crisis within this defensive alliance. Moreover, this crisis is purely artificial, as external factors (the emergence of new security challenges along the CIS borders, general geopolitical instability) should have, on the contrary, united the members of the organization, thereby increasing the CSTO's resilience. The fact is that the strength of any defensive alliance lies not so much in the quantity of weapons and ammunition but in the confidence that in case of necessity and at the first call of any member country, the organization will immediately come to help – even despite possible obstacles or geopolitical considerations.

Today, Armenia is demonstrating in every possible way that its trust in the alliance was completely undermined after the Second Karabakh War. Indeed, from the Armenian side's point of view, it seems that Russia, being the key element of the CSTO, decided not to intervene in the conflict as it considered relations with Türkiye and Azerbaijan much more beneficial than with Armenia.

Furthermore, there is considerable speculation that Russia intended to use the war in Karabakh to overthrow the Pashinyan government, against which the Russian leadership allegedly had many complaints. How justified this belief of the Armenian leadership and a significant part of the society is – this is a separate question; however, in any case, Yerevan's position indirectly influences other CSTO members, undermining their confidence in its long-term reliability.

In other words, this is a crisis of trust, as allied countries in any case raise questions – for example, how reliable a partner is Russia (and therefore the CSTO)? What guarantee is there that in case of a crisis, the Russian authorities will be guided by allied obligations and not by geopolitical considerations and interests?" the pundit noted.

According to him, today the Russian leadership is doing everything possible to prevent Armenia's exit from the CSTO, understanding that such a precedent would deal a huge blow to the image of both the organization and Moscow itself.

"However, Moscow has very few real levers of pressure on official Yerevan left; and even a possible resignation of Pashinyan will not solve the problem with the crisis of trust in the CSTO, which is the main problem for its further development.

What does the future of the CSTO look like? There is no doubt that even Armenia's exit will not lead to the collapse of the CSTO; moreover, from Moscow, we can expect new steps and efforts to strengthen it in the near future. Especially since in the current difficult geopolitical conditions, there is an increased demand for security among the member countries, and consequently, there is growing interest in preserving and strengthening the CSTO. However, Moscow will clearly have to take more substantial measures than just convening conferences and summits to cope with the crisis of trust within the organization, which is not usually talked about but nevertheless exists," Mullojanov concluded.