Russian expert: Armenia has grave political and socio-economic problems ahead Caliber.Az conversation with Alexander Shatilov

Alexander Shatilov, Dean of the Faculty of Sociology and Political Science of the Finance University under the Government of the Russian Federation assessed Armenia's future outside of the regional processes in a conversation with Caliber.Az.

- How dangerous for Armenia is the pro-Western course of Pashinyan's government and its gradual turning away from Russia?

- Pashinyan's team's drift towards the West is quite controversial and, moreover, quite dangerous for Armenia itself. First, by gradually adopting an anti-Russian stance, official Yerevan deprives itself of geopolitical maneuvering. If Russia withdraws from the "Armenian game", it will be forced to put its eggs in one basket and go under the full patronage of the US and the EU. However, this is unlikely to bring any benefits and bonuses to Armenia. The West is now investing all it can in Ukraine, so the "Armenian track" will be financed and supported on a residual principle.

Secondly, Pashinyan should not forget that the West and Türkiye, even if they are at odds, remain allies in the NATO bloc, a situation in which "foreign partners" will agree behind Yerevan's back. We are now seeing something similar in Serbia.

- The latest sabotage attacks in Karabakh confirmed Armenia's purposeful deployment of troops, weapons, and ammunition there. Can Russia counteract Armenian provocations in view of the serious threat to the entire region?

- In my view, Russia is already close to giving up on Armenia and leaving it on its own. On the one hand, Moscow's priority is now the Ukrainian direction, and it does not want to squander away its force. On the other hand, the Russian leadership is tired of the endless fidgeting and inconsistency of its Armenian colleagues, who swear allegiance to Russia, then initiate openly anti-Russian rallies and protests. Russia is therefore unlikely to press Armenia on the Karabakh issue since its persuasion seems to be a voice crying out in the wilderness.

- What are the implications for the region of a two-year EU mission in Armenia?

- As international practice (including frozen conflicts) shows, the deployment of various kinds of EU missions in the zone of tension is utterly profane. The European Union does not have full-fledged political authority, does not have the power to influence the situation, and its observers can only conduct latent intelligence activities and incite the conflicting sides. Especially since the West is now interested in as many hotspots in the post-Soviet space as possible.

- Is there any chance for peace between Baku and Yerevan in the medium term?

- If the negotiations were conducted in a bilateral format with Russia's soft mediation, I believe that peace could be concluded even in the short term. However, again, US and EU interference in this dialogue can only aggravate existing contradictions. Here one may recall the old Anglo-Saxon slogan "divide and conquer".

- Does this make the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border less likely?

- To begin with, I believe the border will be opened to third-country nationals and direct air transportation of goods will be ensured (both logistics and the tourism industry are a priority here), and then full cooperation will be re-established. But again, I emphasise, if there is no interference from the West. The West can promise support to Armenia, thereby inspiring certain hopes in Armenian society, adding fuel to the fire, and disrupting many agreements, including those on the border.

- How do you see Armenia's future outside of regional processes?

- Armenia's future seems very dim (I mean the internal turmoil and geopolitical contradictions). It seems to me that the country has grave political and socio-economic problems ahead.