The foreign policy pursued by the Armenian authorities has created a situation in which both Russia and the West view Yerevan’s actions as uncertain and a source of mistrust. This was stated by Karen Bekaryan, a political analyst and chairman of the board of the Hayatsk Analytical Center.
According to him, Russia’s tough response to Armenia’s European integration process is not the result of a single statement or one day’s developments. It is the consequence of a policy that has taken shape over a long period.
European Integration and EU Membership Are Different Processes
Bekaryan said Armenia’s European integration process should be distinguished from the prospect of membership in the European Union.
He noted that Armenia has for years maintained a cooperation agenda with Europe in areas including human rights, democracy, economic reforms and other fields.
Bekaryan also recalled that Armenia and the European Union signed the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement, or CEPA, under the previous authorities. In his assessment, the agreement provides a foundation for deep cooperation.
Before 2018, however, EU membership was not presented as a political objective because such a move could directly draw Armenia into a clash between the interests of geopolitical centers.
“When you are a small country and operate not in an area where interests intersect but in an area where they collide, this creates very serious problems,” he said.
Simultaneous Alignment With the EU and EAEU Creates an Abnormal Situation
Bekaryan argued that Armenia’s current policy of advancing an EU membership process while continuing to remain a member of the Eurasian Economic Union has created an abnormal situation.
“A law is adopted concerning the process of joining the EU. On the one hand, the authorities say that, yes, this process exists. On the other hand, because we are not yet becoming an EU member today, we continue to remain in the EAEU,” he said.
According to Bekaryan, such an approach was bound to cause a negative reaction among Armenia’s EAEU partners.
He said the reaction from Russia and other EAEU member states is linked not only to Armenia’s actions but also to the reputation of the organization itself.
From the perspective of the member states, uncertainty between remaining in the organization and leaving it damages the EAEU’s international image.
“If you are staying, then stay. If you are leaving, then leave. This suspended situation also causes reputational damage to the organization,” he said.
Under such conditions, Bekaryan added, questions arise over whether any EAEU member state would enter into long-term cooperation with Armenia without understanding Yerevan’s final direction.
He also recalled that the same countries are founding members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Armenia, meanwhile, has frozen its participation in the CSTO and regularly states that a full return is unlikely.
The West Also Sees Armenia as an Unreliable Partner
Bekaryan said that from the perspective of Armenia’s Western partners, the country once again appears to be an unreliable partner.
“Questions about Armenia’s policy may also arise in the West when Yerevan declares that it is deepening strategic partnerships with EU countries and attempts to build a new security agenda, while simultaneously remaining in the CSTO and merely freezing its participation,” he said.
According to the analyst, when Armenia declares that it is developing new areas of cooperation but does not leave the CSTO and instead only freezes its membership, the meaning of that policy becomes unclear.
“If you say that you are doing this and that, but at the same time you are not leaving the CSTO and are only freezing your membership, the question arises: what does this mean?” Bekaryan said.
There Is No Clear Strategy Behind the Policy
Bekaryan expressed confidence that the current situation is rooted in the absence of a clear foreign policy strategy.
“Many people are trying to find some ideological foundation here, but no such foundation exists. This is merely aimed at preserving power and extending the authorities’ time in office,” the political analyst said.
According to him, the process had been predictable since the authorities began pursuing a policy of moving “from wall to wall,” repeatedly shifting direction.
Bekaryan said with regret that the problems created by this approach will not disappear even after a change of government, because rebuilding the trust lost in the foreign policy sphere will require considerable time.