"European integration" as cover for Armenia's foreign policy failures Betting on Europe’s fading liberal elites

The process of normalization in the South Caucasus will be a long one. Instead of focusing efforts on the peace process, Armenia's leadership is trying to entangle it in the webs of external forces. On February 11, the Armenian parliament solemnly passed a bill "On the Start of the Process of Armenia's Accession to the European Union." However, this was only in the first reading. Against the backdrop of the failures of Pashinyan's team on the American front, his faction rushed to take at least this step towards the EU.

Last week, Pashinyan was constantly engaged with the EU, meeting with prominent European liberal politicians. These politicians are unlikely to achieve much, as they could soon be displaced during power shifts in several EU countries and pressure from Trump. However, they are flirting with Armenian revanchist circles, undermining the peace process. In these circumstances, Azerbaijan's firm political stance is crucial, signalling to external players that they will pay a high price for their actions against peace in the Caucasus, achieving nothing in the process.

From revanchism to European integration 

The Armenian parliament voted on EU accession very hesitantly. Sixty-three votes were in favour (though Pashinyan's "Civil Contract" faction has about 70 deputies, with seven mysteriously absent). The "I Have Honor" bloc led by Serzh Sargsyan voted against, with the figures matching—seven votes against, seven members in the bloc. Another opposition faction, the Dashnak-Kocharyan "Alliance of Armenia" (29 deputies), chose to abstain from voting altogether. This suggests that Armenian politicians have a strong potential to tear the country apart if these deepening divisions continue.

Moreover, Pashinyan's team could not even mobilise a significant portion of its own faction for this move. It seems that some suspected there might be something dubious about this "European integration." This is particularly intriguing given that the bill was introduced externally through a citizens' petition, allegedly driven by a "civil initiative for Armenia's EU accession." It was led by Artak Zeynalyan, one of the leaders of the fading "Republic" party.

What is even more interesting is that Zeynalyan is a well-known ultranationalist activist who participated in the armed aggression against Azerbaijan and the occupation of Azerbaijani territories starting from the early 1990s. He later became one of the founders of Armenia's main revanchist organization—the Union of Volunteers "Yerkrapah". However, this did not prevent him from taking part in USAID projects for many years, projects which were supposed to support human rights, tolerance, and so on. Zeynalyan simultaneously became a "human rights defender"—because who else would fight against torture if not someone who participated in the ethnic cleansing of non-Armenian populations in the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan? This remarkable activist ended up at the head of the movement for Armenia's EU accession, thus providing an important service to Pashinyan.

These details shed new light on a scandalous element in the bill itself—where the preamble explicitly states that Armenia, upon joining the EU, hopes to join the family of "civilized countries." In other words, the ideology of racism and Western superiority is presented as a prerequisite for European integration, as "civilization" is tied to a group of former Western empires and their dependent states. Even deputies from the government faction opposed this formulation—not due to its racism, but for an entirely different reason. Sona Ghazaryan pointed out that, according to this phrasing, the law implies that Armenians were not "civilized" before joining the EU.

All of this, of course, is not a fleeting linguistic slip, but rather the true mindset of post-Soviet nationalists and liberals, in whose discourse civilization is only associated with the West. Their own peoples are viewed as needing to be purified through the adoption of Western standards and the "revival" of a fictional past created by nationalists. Zeynalyan himself, when discussing the bill, repeatedly stated: "The goal of this bill [...] is to confirm the will and determination of the country's people and its current authorities to join the EU, the family of advanced, civilized, and developed humanity." This is, so to speak, the notorious "Freudian slip"—the racist, chauvinistic essence of post-Soviet nationalism combined with a subservient attitude toward the West.

However, Pashinyan's team faces more than just the need to polish over the racist elements in the bill. Far more problematic for them is that the political, economic, and strategic realities of the Republic of Armenia do not lend themselves to the adoption of such laws. Yerevan would like to combine membership in the EU with membership in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), Russia's main integration project. Pashinyan himself periodically stirs up scandals within the EAEU, but Armenian authorities continue to talk about the benefits of the EAEU (earning billions by circumventing anti-Russian sanctions) and deny any intentions to withdraw from it.

At a press conference a couple of weeks ago, Prime Minister Pashinyan acknowledged this absurd situation: "Armenia is doing well in the EAEU in terms of economic indicators," but "we cannot ignore the aspirations (at least a certain and very significant part of our people) to form options for Armenia's future, because today is a very important stage to talk about the strategic future of our country."

With such contradictory interests (earning from proximity to Russia) and aspirations toward the EU and NATO, Pashinyan’s team is taking a significant risk by putting forward bills that even fail to mobilize all of their own deputies, with the opposition firmly opposing them. Even more dangerous for Pashinyan is doing so in a strategic context where Moscow not only opposes his rapprochement with the EU and exerts influence over the Armenian opposition (both factions that voted against the bill are known for their ties to Russia), but also maintains a significant military presence in Armenia. Perhaps Pashinyan hopes to balance this with a Western military presence, starting with the semi-military mission of the EU? Speaking recently at the Atlantic Council in Washington, he explained this philosophy—suggesting that it would be better for Armenians to shift from dependence on one (implicitly Russia) to dependence on many (likely including France, the EU, NATO, the U.S., and Iran). But this is a path leading to further degradation of the Armenian state, embedded in the very goal of making it "the servant of many masters."

Agreements with the "yesterday"

However, there is another fatal flaw in the direction of Yerevan's leadership. In recent times, while building relations with the U.S. and the EU, Pashinyan is negotiating with figures and forces who are on the verge of leaving the political scene. It is generally strange to make deals with such counterparties. Sometimes, it seems shortsighted, as soon enough, Armenia will have to deal with different people. At other times, it appears as a desperate move, verging on dishonesty, creating the illusion of a deal with the hope that it will materialize later.

But the ruling party in Armenia urgently needs success—at least in the form of an illusory beginning of European integration. The popularity of Pashinyan's "Civil Contract" is catastrophically low—according to recent polls, it has dropped to an unprecedented 11%. It is no surprise that the recent moves of Armenia’s leadership in the Western direction carry a sense of desperation. The bill on EU accession is being passed "under" the liberal European establishment, represented by figures like Macron and von der Leyen. However, this establishment is "on its way out." A term from painting comes to mind here, describing a landscape on the verge of change due to shifting weather.

Indeed, the darkest storm clouds are gathering over the liberal establishment of the EU. On the external front, EU liberals are already retreating, pressured by the team of the new U.S. president, and this is just the beginning, judging by the plans in Washington to put European politicians in their place, especially those secretly siding with Trump's opponents. On the internal front, the liberal establishment will be hit not only by elections in Germany and Poland, where pro-Brussels forces are facing serious challenges. The political model that EU liberal elites tried to impose is crumbling—hence the unprecedented polling figures regarding election manipulation and the failures of pro-European uprisings in Georgia, Slovakia, and Serbia. This is also why there was a prominent summit of illiberal right-wing forces with clear sympathies for Trump, recently held in Spain, challenging Brussels.

By trying to negotiate Armenia’s European integration with the decaying elites in Brussels, Pashinyan is repeating his recent move in Washington for the Armenian people. Recall that there, he managed to strike a "strategic partnership" agreement with the team of U.S. President Biden, who was already packing his bags.

Today, Armenian leaders claim that "according to the political culture of the U.S.," international agreements during a change of administration in Washington are necessarily coordinated with the team of the incoming president. They argue that there's no need to worry, as Trump is aware of the situation. However, "political culture" is a vague concept, and if Pashinyan is citing it, it suggests that he has nothing else to offer. He could have already received confirmation from the new U.S. leadership, but he did not, because Trump's team, judging by the situation, was not inclined to coordinate anything with the previous administration and is now showing a willingness to reconsider Biden-era agreements.

In trying to address this problem, Pashinyan recently made a failed visit across the ocean under the comical pretext of participating in the "International Summit on Religious Freedom" and the "National Prayer Breakfast"—events organized by structures close to the Democratic Party—where he was the only foreign leader. He managed to meet only with the Vice President and, most likely, was unable to secure assurances about the preservation of agreements that existed under Biden. These agreements would have been very useful to Pashinyan, as Trump, even in the fight for Armenian-American voters in November, called not him but his opponent, the Armenian-Lebanese Catholicos Aram I.

Moreover, the Armenian lobby in the U.S. is already in turmoil: a key member of this lobby in the U.S. Congress, Bob Menendez, has found himself behind bars, and the structures of USAID, built by Samantha Power, a close associate of Moscow oligarch and Armenian nationalist leader Ruben Vardanyan, are now being dismantled. Power herself is facing scrutiny due to her questionable enrichment during her time in office. On February 13, similar suspicions were raised by Elon Musk regarding another ally of the Armenian lobby in the U.S., former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Musk asked how, earning $223,000 a year, she managed to amass $220 million.

Europe and war

In general, the American direction currently seems hopeless for the Armenian leadership. It’s not surprising, then, that in Yerevan, they’ve started to urgently push for contacts with opponents of the new U.S. administration—European Union liberals. In addition to passing the aforementioned law, which allows Brussels' eurocrats to declare another triumph of "Eurointegration," Prime Minister Pashinyan had highly indicative meetings in Munich at the end of the working week—all with representatives of the European liberal establishment.

First, Pashinyan met with the President of the European Council, António Costa. This sounds impressive, if one doesn’t know who he truly is. Costa is a typical Brussels bureaucrat, who resigned in disgrace as Prime Minister of Portugal following a series of high-profile corruption scandals involving his inner circle. When it came to him personally... he was hurriedly promoted to EU structures last year. This is a common practice—just look at the biographies of the "EU Commissioners." In other words, Costa is a man without influence, "from the past," who has been given the opportunity to enjoy a comfortable retirement in Brussels. However, this may not be guaranteed, as he could be ousted from his current position sooner than expected, considering the growing influence of Europe's far-right factions.

Another of Pashinyan's interlocutors in Munich was former NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen. This was a curious choice, as Rasmussen now primarily earns through his consulting firm "Rasmussen Global" and engages in risky political manoeuvres. For instance, he recently published a virtual manifesto of the global liberal elites about fighting against Trump.

In other words, by attempting to distance itself from Russia and pivot towards the West, Armenia's current leadership is betting on the weakening liberal elites that cling to power. These elites, of course, value such gestures, especially as their ranks have thinned out in recent times. Armenia is being praised for its moves: for instance, the European Green Party, whose member parties’ ratings are plummeting, recently welcomed the adoption of the European integration bill, and in the coming days, it will lose its influence as it exits the ruling coalition in Germany.

But it’s not just about mutual compliments between Armenia and the EU; it’s also about attempts to take Armenia into "account." European liberals are trying to counter Trump's stance on ending the war in Eastern Europe and redirecting the collective West to focus on confronting China. A telling example is the congratulatory message from the Chairman of the German Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee, Michael Roth (whose party will soon likely be out of government): "Congratulations to this huge step towards the EU. What a historic decision! I really hope that the European Union will not just find kind words but will actively support Armenia. We must not lose Georgia and Armenia to Russian imperialism." 

In other words, Armenia is openly being offered a role in the broader confrontation with Russia. In exchange, European pseudo-liberals are willing to flirt with Armenian revanchist circles—especially since, as we have seen above, the boundaries between them and the supporters of European integration in Armenia are blurred. This explains some of the strange statements made by certain Western politicians towards Azerbaijan and in support of revanchist factions within Armenia.

The foreign policy course pursued by Yerevan is currently undermining Armenian statehood by pawning Armenia's sovereignty in international political pawnshops, rather than building partnership relations with neighbouring countries, especially Azerbaijan, for a better future. In the process, the Republic of Armenia itself is becoming a constant player in fleeting schemes and reckless manoeuvres. As a result, the Azerbaijani government will likely have to normalize regional relations and restore the historical unity of the South Caucasus largely against the will of the Armenian leadership. This is not due to any selfishness or desire for hegemony, but because of the objective necessity to prevent the global political chaos from spilling over into the South Caucasus and the need to build a future for all peoples of the region, without waiting for the Armenian leadership to think about it.