The moment of truth: Armenia is facing a tough choice Experts comment on Kaljurand's message to Yerevan

Last week, pro-Armenian MP from Estonia, head of the European Parliament delegation to the South Caucasus, and member of the Armenian Group of Friendship in the European Parliament Marina Kaljurand, already familiar to our readers from previous articles, appeared in a very unusual role.

Thus, on the air of Armenian Channel 5, she stated the following: "We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that today Armenia is part of the Customs Union with Russia and Belarus; we cannot ignore the fact that today Armenia is a member of CSTO, a defence organisation with Russia. So your country, your people, and your government should decide on what level you want to cooperate with the EU.

To the journalist's comment that at this stage it is Russia on the ground that repels the so-called "existential threat to the people of Armenia and Karabakh," while the EU offers no alternative mechanisms, Kaljurand pointed out that no union is capable of providing guarantees of protection to a country which is in a different defence bloc.

The MEP did not agree with the approach of Armenian authorities that under current circumstances Armenians trust Russia, and Russian peacekeepers, she believes that "the hour of truth has come".

In short, Kaljurand quite unequivocally, and still to the whole of Armenia, informed the authorities and people of this country that regardless of any fantasies and desires, they now face a very simple but inevitable choice - either get closer to Europe or continue to remain in the CSTO, the "Taiga Union" and other "EAEC" likes.

Can Yerevan raise the issue of its continued presence in the CSTO and other pro-Kremlin alliances? Pashinyan and members of Armenia's ruling team have repeatedly hinted at this, but no progress has been made. What prevents the Armenian authorities from doing so? Maybe their indecision is caused by their strong fear of something. What is it?

Prominent foreign experts answered these questions for Caliber.Az.

Parviz Mullodzhanov, Ph.D., an independent Tajik political scientist, notes that the war in Ukraine has aggravated not only international relations but also the geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the West.

"In this regard, Moscow's positions are now being challenged throughout the post-Soviet space. And the longer the war lasts, the harder it is for Russia's partners and allies to distance themselves from the Ukrainian conflict and maintain a balance in relations with Moscow and the 'collective West'. Moreover, whereas previously Western countries tried not to cross the 'red line' - that is, not to challenge Russia's dominance in the former Soviet Union - they are now going on the offensive. Apparently, this time the EU and the US have decided to push Russia out of the former Soviet space - at least to reduce its influence as much as possible. This explains the frequent visits of Western politicians and parliamentarians to the republics of the South Caucasus and Central Asia," the expert said.

On the other hand, we also see "reciprocal" visits of concerned Russians to post-Soviet countries - with a whole package of promises, exhortations, threats, and economic projects, Mullodzhanov added. In this sense, post-Soviet countries increasingly find themselves facing a choice - in this case, from the point of view of the West, they should at least distance themselves from Moscow. Not all will be able to do so - many CIS countries, such as Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, or Moldova are too dependent on Russia, both economically and in the security sector, the doctor notes.

"As to Armenia, the country is in a very difficult geopolitical situation. On the one hand, Armenia is a full member of the CSTO and actively participates in all of Moscow's integration models and initiatives. In the Armenian public consciousness, Russia is traditionally perceived as the main guarantor of state independence and security of the population. On the other hand, Moscow has clearly shown itself to be an unreliable ally: many believe that it was unwilling or unable to fulfill its obligations to Yerevan as a CSTO member during the Second Karabakh War. As a result, according to polls, Russia's rating in Armenia is steadily declining.

Against this backdrop, Western diplomacy is intensifying, which increases divisions in society and discourse regarding Russia's reliability as a security guarantor.

At the same time, it is unlikely that Armenia will decide to break with Moscow and demonstratively withdraw from the CSTO and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). First, as mentioned above, because of its high economic dependence on Russia; second, a quarrel with Moscow would only worsen the country's geopolitical position; third, Russia itself is unlikely to want to leave the region or the conflict zone - that is, the desire of Yerevan or Baku alone would clearly be insufficient here. If it wishes, Moscow could still create serious security problems, to varying degrees, for any country in the region or the post-Soviet space. Moscow could suddenly change its vector and thereby dramatically alter the situation in the conflict zone. Russia and Russian troops are already in the region, while the EU's involvement has so far been largely limited to general statements and declarations. Therefore, most likely, there will not be a final break between Moscow and Yerevan, although the role and involvement of the 'collective West' (as well as other geopolitical players) in the region will continue to steadily increase," the Tajik political scientist concluded.

The head of the Ukrainian Policy Foundation, analyst and historian Konstantin Bondarenko first of all noted that Marina Kaljurand could hardly be called a pro-Armenian politician. According to him, she has consistently taken a pro-American position and claims to be a mouthpiece of the collective West on the Caucasian crisis.

"Kaljurand, by the way, has Russian origin (at least, her mother is Russian), but she has consistently taken an anti-Russian position. And her approach to the Armenian issue boils down to 'you have it coming'. And, they say, if Armenia were to withdraw from the CSTO and the economic alliance with Russia, we could consider helping. It is important: not to help, but to consider the issue. Armenia is very dependent economically and geopolitically on Russia. For it, orientation towards Russia is the only possible way of self-preservation in today's world, given its scarcity of resources, conflicts with neighbours, a huge diaspora, and other factors," Bondarenko said.

He noted that Pashinyan came to power under pro-Western slogans, but his tenure as prime minister led him to be forced to change his political orientation.

"In addition, Russia is, for better or worse, a peacemaker in the Caucasus (no matter how much publicity is given to Anthony Blinken's success in reconciling Armenia and Azerbaijan during the Munich conference). Ms. Kaljurand is pushing Yerevan into a political adventure that does not take into account Armenia's specifics. Ms. Kaljurand's 'recipe' would be absolutely applicable and understandable in the case of Estonia. But Armenia is not Estonia, and Estonian 'recipes' are not suitable for Armenia," the analyst stressed.

Kazakhstani political scientist Zhaksylyk Sabitov does not think that Yerevan will be able to raise the issue of withdrawal from the CSTO and the EAEU.

"First, membership in the EAEU is economically beneficial for Armenia. That is, even in the distribution of customs fees, Armenia receives a much higher percentage than the one it could collect on its own. And that, of course, is a bit unfair. It turns out that one of the most important beneficiaries of the distribution of customs duties is Belarus, and for Armenia and Kyrgyzstan (despite the small size of their economies, but due to the fact that their membership was considered desirable), the percentage of customs duties that they receive from the common pool was slightly increased. And Kazakhstan in this respect is the most kind of loser member of the EEU," the scientist explained.

As for the CSTO, Yerevan is unlikely to leave the bloc if the current status quo persists, he said. "If the overall situation changes geopolitically, that is, there will be some specific big changes on the Ukrainian front, then perhaps not only Armenia but also other countries will be able to leave both the EAEU and the CSTO.

Pashinyan himself, when he was in opposition, argued against all these Eurasian integration unions, but after coming to power he had to move in line with Armenia's national interests. So, as long as the status quo is maintained, including with Russia, and if Russia does not lose the war, i.e. is able to withdraw from it and remain as a state, probably nothing much will change in the status of the CSTO and the EAEU. That is why Armenia will not leave these organisations if the current conditions persist," Sabitov concluded.