For many years, Armenia’s current authorities have failed to make a clear choice between the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union. During visits to Europe, officials speak about the importance of EU membership. In Moscow and on CIS platforms, they stress the need to deepen cooperation with the EAEU.
Can this approach be described as a balanced policy? According to political analyst Tigran Khachatryan, these statements imply mutually exclusive actions. They have no real connection to genuine balancing.
Integration Unions and the Issue of Sovereignty
Khachatryan argues that membership in integration unions fundamentally rules out true balance.
“You are either inside such a union or you are not. Participation in integration blocs means transferring part of state sovereignty to supranational bodies,” he says.
He stresses the need to distinguish between international organizations and integration unions. Membership in the UN or the Council of Europe does not require surrendering sovereignty. This also applies to economic and customs policy. By contrast, both the EU and the EAEU require the transfer of certain powers.
“Any integration union works the same way, regardless of geography. Even a hypothetical African union would require its members to give up similar sovereign powers,” Khachatryan notes.
Why Dual Membership Is Impossible
As an example, the analyst refers to the recently announced quota allowing Armenia to import 15,000 electric vehicles duty-free.
“This shows that Armenia’s customs policy is not decided only in Yerevan. It is shaped jointly with other EAEU states. Import volumes and tariff levels are determined within a common economic space,” he explains.
Khachatryan emphasizes that it is both physically and logically impossible to delegate the same powers to two different integration unions.
“If the EAEU allows duty-free imports from China, the EU does the opposite. It restricts or raises tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. A country simply cannot operate under two systems at the same time,” he stresses.
What Real Balancing Means
According to Khachatryan, genuine balancing is possible only if a state does not belong to any integration union. In that case, it maintains equal distance from different blocs.
However, for Armenia this option carries serious economic risks.
“Leaving the EAEU would deprive Armenia of several benefits. These include gas pricing advantages and access to a unified energy market. Full independence may offer some gains, but in the short and medium term the losses would be significant,” he says.
The Blockade Factor and the EAEU’s Economic Impact
Khachatryan recalls that Armenia remains under blockade by Turkey. The country has only two land routes — through Georgia and Iran.
“Relations with Iran have become more complicated in recent years. Even with Georgia, border issues could create difficulties. In such conditions, leaving an integration union means losing many opportunities,” he notes.
According to the analyst, Armenia’s post-war economic growth was exceptional. It was largely driven by re-export within the EAEU framework. “Without membership in the union, Armenia would not have seen such short-term economic benefits,” he emphasizes.
Leaving the EAEU and Political Stability
Commenting on claims that leaving the EAEU could lead to the rapid collapse of Nikol Pashinyan’s government, Khachatryan says such a scenario is theoretically possible.
“If Armenia cuts its economic ties overnight and does not immediately join the EU, which is practically impossible, the risk of economic and financial collapse would be extremely high,” he explains.
He adds that European integration is not just about technical standards.
“Even if a country fully complies with EU norms, the process remains political. Any of the 27 EU member states can veto accession. Turkey is the most illustrative example,” Khachatryan concludes.
He also notes that several EU countries maintain close relations with Turkey. This makes unconditional support for Armenia’s EU membership difficult to imagine.