At the end of May, Astana is expected to host a meeting of the heads of state of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), during which, according to Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk, the issue of Armenia’s status within the bloc may be discussed.
The agenda of the upcoming meeting is being shaped amid Armenia’s ongoing election campaign and broader debates surrounding the country’s foreign policy orientation and participation in European integration processes.
Yerevan, for its part, continues to stress that it is pursuing closer relations with the European Union as a strategic direction while, at the current stage, not intending to sever ties with the EAEU.
Armenian political and official circles also acknowledge that simultaneous membership in both the EU and the EAEU is viewed as impossible and that Armenia will eventually have to make a final choice “when the time comes.”
At the same time, the domestic political factor remains important, as the election race continues and there is a strong possibility that Armenia’s prime minister will not attend the Astana summit.
The EAEU economy and Armenia’s growth model
Political analyst Vahe Davtyan describes the current situation as an approach toward a strategic choice whose cost for Armenia, in his assessment, could be extremely high.
According to him, leaving the EAEU cannot be viewed simply as a political or “civilizational” maneuver because it would have direct and large-scale consequences for the country’s economy.
Davtyan notes that Armenia’s economic development over the past decade has taken place within the framework of the Eurasian integration model.
In his assessment, since joining the EAEU Armenia’s GDP has increased more than 2.5 times, rising from roughly 10 billion to 26 billion U.S. dollars.
He stresses that membership in the union provided Armenia with access to a common market, free movement of labor, capital, and goods, as well as preferential energy conditions that remain critically important for the country’s current economic model.
Energy risks and pricing concerns
The analyst pays particular attention to the energy dimension.
He compares natural gas prices, noting that Russia supplies Armenia with gas at approximately 177.5 dollars per thousand cubic meters, taking calorific adjustments into account, while prices in European countries can exceed 600 dollars.
According to him, alternative supply scenarios remain limited.
Azerbaijan is not capable of covering Armenia’s full demand, while the Iranian direction, although theoretically possible, still depends on coordination with Russia due to existing infrastructure and regional arrangements.
Taking all this into account, Davtyan concludes that any restructuring of energy supplies would inevitably lead to higher prices for both consumers and businesses in Armenia.
Trade and economic ties
Speaking about external economic relations, Davtyan draws attention to the decline in trade turnover with Russia, which he estimates could reach approximately 45% in 2025.
At the same time, he emphasizes that the Russian direction remains one of the central pillars of Armenia’s economy, supporting exports, industrial cooperation, remittances, logistics chains, and a significant share of the labor market.
As a result, any changes in the structure of relations with the EAEU would affect not just отдельные sectors but the country’s overall system of economic stability.
Politics and economics follow different logics
More broadly, Davtyan argues that current discussions increasingly attempt to replace economic logic with political expectations and symbolic slogans.
He stresses that the geography and structure of economic relations cannot be transformed through political declarations alone.
For countries with limited resources, sharp changes in external economic orientation are associated with significant risks.
Possible consequences
Among the potential consequences of such a scenario, he lists rising tariffs, declining exports, reduced industrial competitiveness, intensified migration processes, and growing social tensions.
Taken together, he believes these developments could also result in political instability.
Summarizing his position, the political analyst argues that the issue is not only about foreign policy choices but also about the absence of long-term strategic planning.
According to him, this makes state governance reactive and focused on short-term political effects.