Pashinyan: Caught between Moscow and Brussels Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk has delivered a verdict: Armenia will not be able to "sit on two chairs" and will have to choose between the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the European Union (EU). This comment followed Armenia's adoption of a bill to begin the process of joining the EU.

"I have reviewed the text of the law that was adopted. It's one of those – all for the good, against all the bad, very general words. But this is Armenia's internal matter. In reality, we understand that both the EAEU and the EU have similar agendas. Therefore, of course, the country will need to make a decision and make that choice. Because it will definitely not be possible to sit on two chairs at the same time," said the Russian Deputy Prime Minister.

Russian politicians have repeatedly pointed out that Armenia needs to make a decision regarding its position in the region: West or East, EAEU or EU. What does Yerevan think about this matter? According to Deputy Prime Minister Overchuk, the hour of decision seems to be approaching. What decision will Yerevan make?

Russian political analyst Vladislav Gerdin believes that Armenia has essentially made it clear that its "European" romance is a big scam, built on the practice of half-measures and half-actions: "Pashinyan is engaged in European integration to the extent that it does not interfere with his relations within the framework of the EAEU. Yes, it's obvious that Yerevan is practically boycotting the CSTO's work, but at the same time, it has not withdrawn from it.

On the other hand, we see that Armenia still maintains its presence in the trilateral commission for unblocking communications, actively trades within the EAEU, and develops its partnership with the EU only in certain directions — meaning, as already mentioned, it implements a set of half-measures to fulfill the promises made to the West, while not exposing or fully selling its relations with Russia, actively keeping the gate open. Yerevan understands well that the West, due to the situation with Ukraine, is very interested in contacts and cooperation with Armenia — simply to create the appearance of its presence in the South Caucasus, since it has not been able to truly establish it."

As Overchuk pointed out, the game of sitting on two chairs is indeed present, but it is already clear that Armenia is not willing to give up its contacts and ties with Russia and its coalition partners to Europe and the United States. The position of the U.S. has changed since Trump’s arrival and is clearly no longer as complimentary toward Armenia. Therefore, it is currently not in Yerevan's interest to quarrel with Russia — especially if, with Trump's involvement, there is a real possibility of negotiating an end to the war in Ukraine, leading to a new phase of warming relations between the EU, the U.S., and Russia.

"Pashinyan is not a master at thinking through complex multi-step maneuvers and combinations; he is more of a master at spontaneous play. But reality is changing so often now that Pashinyan’s strategy is actually bringing him certain advantages. There are two important markers indicating that Yerevan is unlikely to actively strive to become the West's vanguard in the South Caucasus and escalate relations with Moscow to the maximum. The first is the unsuccessful path of other post-Soviet countries towards the EU. Pashinyan is not so foolish as to overlook this or fail to be cautious about such adventures. The second is Pashinyan’s agreement to attend the Victory Parade in Moscow in May — a gesture that Europe will view very negatively.

It seems that Pashinyan has made up his mind, choosing between Moscow and Brussels. And if he has taken this step, it can be seen as a significant sign that Armenia’s Prime Minister has decided not to risk and to maintain Yerevan’s strategic cooperation with Moscow and its allies, including the highly beneficial economic ties within the EAEU. So far, Europe has been unable to offer Armenia an alternative to this obvious reality," emphasized Gerdin.

Georgian analyst, candidate of political sciences Teymuraz Garishvili believes that the situation with Georgia and its unsuccessful integration process with the EU speaks for itself and provides food for thought for Yerevan.

"Let's be honest, Pashinyan is a politician who flows with the tide, rather than against it. His political will is unlikely to be enough to completely sever ties with Moscow and make significant breakthrough steps in establishing relations with the West, as Mikheil Saakashvili once attempted to do. I think that if Tbilisi currently had excellent relations with the EU and the U.S., and tense ones with Russia, Pashinyan would clearly be more inclined toward any cooperation with Europe, no matter how harshly and gloomily Moscow looks at him.

But despite Georgia’s long-standing cooperation with the EU and the U.S., and close ties with NATO, Pashinyan is now able to see firsthand how his ‘integration romance’ with the West could end. When Brussels doesn’t like something in Armenia’s policy toward Moscow or Armenian legislation, it will begin demanding that Pashinyan rewrite laws or break ties, possibly even within the framework of the same EAEU mechanism. The West may threaten to block Armenia’s EU integration if he refuses, applying the same measures it has already imposed on Tbilisi.

Therefore, Pashinyan fully understands that it is the EU that could undermine his desire to expand his power in Armenia, whereas Moscow or Minsk are not at all inclined to dictate to Pashinyan how he should act in his country. So, the practice of sitting on two chairs will continue as much as possible for Pashinyan. This position is currently the most advantageous for Pashinyan in terms of political bonuses — at the moment, he is receiving them from both Brussels and Moscow," said Garishvili.