Yerevan may miss critical moment for settling disputes with Moscow and Baku Experts warn of political fallout risk

During the CIS summit in Moscow, Armenia declined to endorse two key statements from the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers: "On the Principles of Ensuring Security in Eurasia" and "On the Unacceptability of Unilateral Measures in International Relations." Given Armenia's active tilt toward the West, its decision to stage another political display at this summit comes as little surprise.

But what exactly deterred Armenia from supporting these statements? What specific concerns did it have? Caliber.Az sought the perspectives of Russian experts on the matter.

Nikolay Mezhevich, Doctor of Economics and Professor at the Department of European Studies at St. Petersburg State University, referred to Nikita Khrushchev’s memoirs, "To Live in Peace and Friendship," following his visit to the United States. Mezhevich emphasized that peace — and ideally friendship — is much needed in the South Caucasus, though it remains elusive for now.

He emphasized the significance of the CIS Heads of State summit held in Moscow, where several critical documents, primarily focused on security, were prepared for signing. He specifically referred to two key statements from the CIS Council of Foreign Ministers: "On the Principles of Security in Eurasia" and "On the Inadmissibility of Unilateral Measures in International Relations."

Mezhevich pointed out, "The documents are drafted in such a way that frankly speaking, it is a sin not to sign them — everything in them is maximally verified and diplomatic. The format of the statement itself is a document with a rather limited legal potential. It is neither a treaty nor a convention, but a very cautious and polite form of expressing a common position."

In this context, Armenia’s refusal to sign these documents, according to Mezhevich, "does not add credibility to the authorities of the republic." He elaborated that Russia remains highly attentive to the situation in the South Caucasus, adding, "We realize that Prime Minister Pashinyan is not the whole people of Armenia; this is just his position. And the fact that this is connected with the French factor, the influence of Paris on many of Yerevan's decisions is more than obvious to me, as a specialist of the Institute of Europe."

However, Mezhevich stressed, "This in no way removes the responsibility of the leader of the Republic of Armenia."

In general, he concluded, "The strengthening of security in the South Caucasus seems to be the fate of Baku and Tbilisi. As for Yerevan's actions, it is clearly oriented towards external forces that are very far from the region."

Ruslan Aysin, a blogger and editor-in-chief of the "Poistine" portal, observed that Armenia is once again attempting to play a large geopolitical game by engaging with multiple political forces — whether Moscow, Paris, Washington, or Tehran — while offering each of them different services.

"And these hemming and hawing by Yerevan have already become the norm for the Pashinyan regime. Because, as we remember, one moment he's talking about Armenia's withdrawal from the CSTO or breaking alliances and the next, he's participating in CIS meetings. Pashinyan is not signing agreements with Moscow and other CIS countries simply because Yerevan’s Western allies might react harshly to such a step."

Aysin emphasized that this lack of a balanced policy and Yerevan’s singular focus on the West is preventing Armenia from solving many of its key issues, particularly with Azerbaijan. He warned, "These clever attempts to sit on different chairs at the same time will sooner or later end very badly for Armenia. Yerevan may forever miss the chance to settle important issues with Moscow and Baku voluntarily. At some point, it will lose the ability to set the rules of the game and will have to accept everything as an inevitability, including its political fiasco," Aysin concluded.