Russia wants its relations with Armenia to return to the situation that existed before 2020 or 2023. That is becoming increasingly difficult, however, because the two countries’ interests have changed and the consensus of interests that underpinned their former relationship no longer exists, political analyst Davit Petrosyan said.
In his assessment, these differing interests inevitably lead both sides to take steps that change the nature of Armenia–Russia relations.
Security as the former foundation of Armenia–Russia relations
According to Petrosyan, security was the most important pillar of Armenia–Russia relations. A framework had developed to preserve the status quo in Nagorno-Karabakh and ensure Armenia’s security. Within that framework, Armenia had effectively delegated its foreign and security policy to Russia.
The framework began to weaken after the 44-day war in 2020. In the analyst’s assessment, one of the first serious cracks appeared then. The situation deteriorated further when Azerbaijani troops entered Armenia’s internationally recognized territory and occupied part of it. “There was no adequate response from Russia, either within the framework of bilateral relations or through the CSTO,” Petrosyan recalled.
Another significant event was the departure of the Armenian population from Nagorno-Karabakh. As a result, the security component that had previously been central to Armenia–Russia relations effectively disappeared from that relationship, according to the analyst.
The direction of military-technical cooperation also changed. Whereas Armenia previously purchased more than 90 percent of its weapons from Russia, Petrosyan said the picture is now reversed: more than 90 percent is purchased from other countries, while Russia accounts for only 5–10 percent.
TRIPP as part of Armenia’s deterrence system
Petrosyan said Armenia’s security system is not limited to the military sphere. It also includes economic and trade components.
In this context, he singled out the TRIPP project, stressing that it has not only economic significance for Armenia but is also an important deterrence tool.
“When we talk about a security system, we are, of course, talking about Armenia’s deterrence system. The means by which we primarily deter Azerbaijan are not solely military. TRIPP is part of that system. In essence, it is a security project for us, but it also has an economic component,” the analyst said.
In his assessment, the Russian side cannot come to terms with the situation because its former role in Armenia’s security system has diminished significantly.
Economic tools follow a decline in security influence
According to Petrosyan, after losing its former security-related means of influence over Armenia, Russia began to use economic tools more actively. In particular, he referred to restrictions on the entry of certain goods.
At the same time, he said, other partners came to Armenia’s aid by offering alternative support concerning the very goods whose entry had been restricted.
In the analyst’s assessment, Russia sees its influence in Armenia declining and recognizes that it could fall to a very low level.
Moscow places the responsibility on Armenia’s authorities
Petrosyan said people in Russia realize that the Armenian public’s trust in them has declined and attitudes have changed. Surveys also point to this, he said.
In his view, however, the Russian side tries to attribute the deterioration in Armenia–Russia relations to the Armenian authorities rather than present it as a consequence of changes in its own interests.
“They say, ‘Your authorities are to blame; let the Armenian people decide.’ They do not want to acknowledge, so to speak, that there is a Republic of Armenia, that there is a government, an elected government. They talk about the Armenian people but do not talk about the Republic of Armenia,” Petrosyan said.
He said Russia’s historical and political perceptions also underlie this approach. In Moscow, there is a belief that, after 1828, Russia’s role enabled the Armenian people to come together and continue living in this territory. The historical experience of the Soviet period also shaped that perception.
Beyond the historical factor, Petrosyan said, there is a political conviction in Russia that Armenia cannot pursue an independent foreign and security policy without Russian protection.
👉 Politics