Escalating the issue of Armenia serves Russia’s aim of maintaining its position in relations with other EAEU members, particularly Central Asian states, while limiting the European Union’s options, political commentator Hakob Badalyan argues.
He questions whether Armenia’s prospect of joining the European Union was, in itself, sufficiently serious and realistic to warrant such a forceful response from Moscow. In Badalyan’s view, other political objectives may lie behind the publicly expressed concerns over Armenia’s European direction and the ultimatum-like demands directed at Yerevan, with the Armenian issue being used to pursue those objectives.
Central Asia is Russia’s key priority
In Badalyan’s assessment, EAEU member states currently have room to express their own positions. Although Russia plays a major role in the organization, he does not believe Moscow simply imposes its position on the other members. He suggests there may be a common position on the situation involving Armenia, but the central issue should be sought in a broader political context.
The commentator attaches particular importance to Russia’s relations with Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. He says Moscow faces serious challenges in Central Asia: those countries’ ties with the European Union are no less close than Armenia’s. Moreover, the EU engages with Central Asian countries through various formats, and that cooperation is more substantive.
In Armenia’s case, Badalyan believes there is almost no concrete substance beyond the rhetoric of European integration. This raises the question of why Armenia’s European prospects, in particular, provoke such strong reactions and ultimatum-like demands.
His hypothesis is that escalating the Armenian issue could allow Russia to shape the political discussion in advance, preventing developments from gaining momentum in areas more important to Moscow — particularly Central Asia. That region also matters to the European Union, bringing Russian and European interests into conflict.
In this context, Armenia could be viewed as an intermediate link whose significance depends on the resolution of larger regional issues. In Badalyan’s interpretation, the main contest concerns Central Asia, while the Armenian issue is being used to shape the political environment surrounding that contest.
The Russia–US–China format and Europe’s concerns
The second factor Badalyan identifies is a broader geopolitical realignment. In his assessment, a Russia–US–China grouping is taking shape in which issues of global significance are discussed. The commentator notes that the possibility of such a trilateral summit in China in November is already being discussed openly, although the meeting has not been confirmed.
He believes this format concerns the European Union and the United Kingdom because Europe is left outside it. If the EU and the UK fear exclusion from processes involving matters of global importance, Badalyan suggests, attempts could emerge to obstruct the interests of the format’s participants elsewhere.
The South Caucasus is one such area. The Armenian–Azerbaijani process could become one of the arenas in which the realization of those interests might be disrupted or complicated.
Within this reasoning, Badalyan also considers Russia’s possible interest — and, given the role of President Donald Trump, that of the United States — in restricting the EU’s and the UK’s freedom of action in the South Caucasus.
In his interpretation, this could require placing the European side in a position where it must assume responsibility for Yerevan and the situation surrounding Armenia. Demands directed at Armenia that lead to a dead end and appear to take the form of ultimatums could, in this sense, constrain the EU and the UK. This would limit their ability to intervene in or obstruct regional developments.
Thus, in Badalyan’s hypothesis, the tensions being generated around Armenia may have a broader significance than the context of Armenia–EU relations alone would suggest.
Changes in Azerbaijan’s behavior amid broader developments
Badalyan says noticeable changes have occurred in Azerbaijan’s behavior in recent weeks, following Armenia’s parliamentary elections. He highlights the incident involving an Azerbaijani serviceman entering Armenian territory, as well as later reports about a lost Azerbaijani civilian who, according to some accounts, arrived carrying a white flag.
The commentator says such incidents can alter the situation and serve as initial signals for broader regional developments. For that reason, he considers them beyond their immediate significance as separate border or local incidents and draws attention to their chronology.
Badalyan does not claim that these incidents were organized in advance as part of a larger plan. However, he believes that when they occur alongside broader geopolitical processes, their timing provides grounds to examine possible connections and consider the events within a wider political context.