Author: Elchin Alioglu
Source: Trend
Armenia’s decision to suspend the CIS countries’ participation in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) has further strained relations between Yerevan and Moscow. This action, as severely criticized by the former leaders of the CSTO and Russian official circles, called into question Armenia’s strategic future against the backdrop of multipolar geopolitical pressure.
This year, Armenia had to actively exercise its powers as chairman of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and hold important meetings in Yerevan. But before the meeting, the Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan, declared that he does not consider it appropriate to hold the summit in Yerevan, where Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko will participate. Pashinyan explained his decision as follows: “For known reasons…some leaders of the EU are undesirable persons for Armenia. In the process of ratifying the Rome Statute, we established a positive dialogue with our Russian partners and showed them an example of the special defense agreement signed with the United States. But Russia did not agree to the proposal for some reason. “.
The Rome Statute – the official declaration of obedience to the decisions of the International Criminal Court – implies obedience to the decisions of the structure that has declared Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “criminals”.
Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko has become a painful figure in Pashinyan’s eyes; his blunt critical statements cause moral discomfort to Pashinyan. The matter reached the point where Putin was almost declared “persona non grata” by Armenia. Moscow assessed this move as an insult. As the official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Maria Zakharova, emphasized, after that, Putin has no interest in meeting Pashinyan personally.
Nikol Pashinyan is actually following the path of Mikheil Saakashvili. Pashinan, who relies on the western-oriented national elite, encouraged more than two thousand NGOs financed by foreign funds to take root in the country. Yerevan’s surrender of complete media control to Western circles has fueled hysterical anti-Russian propaganda. Repetition of the Ukrainian and Georgian models carries this ideological motto: “First distrust Russia, then declare it a traitor, and finally create complete hatred.”
He fell into the trap of his revanchism and aggressive policy in the Second Karabakh War in 2020.
Pashinyan’s policy is leading his people to divide, to increase more aggressive rhetoric against Russia, to become the next tool of the West. The authorities in Iravan chose this way only considering their mercantile interests, not the Armenians.
The Prime Minister of Armenia, which is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), accused Russia of treason, citing its non-participation in the last war. This idea was stubbornly instilled in the Armenian people and took root quite firmly in their current consciousness. A significant part of Armenians living in Russia also accepts this idea, which was instilled in them by the national elite. But a Russian person cannot be more Armenian than an Armenian!
Firstly, Armenia did not officially apply for Moscow’s military and military-technical support during that conflict. Its regular troops did not participate in military operations on the side of the Armenian formations in Karabakh.
However, Karabakh belongs to Azerbaijan: only the Karabakh Armenians declared “independence” in 1992, that is, they took the path of terrorism and separatism.
After the end of the Second Karabakh War, Yerevan’s baseless and fictitious attacks against Russia and the CSTO continued. Over the past year, Armenia has refused the planned exercises of the CSTO and stopped participating in its other events.
But Pashinyan’s last speech at the parliamentary session “put a full stop to all this”. He stated that “Armenia’s return to the Collective Security Treaty Organization is becoming increasingly difficult, almost impossible.” According to him, “we (Armenians) do not participate in discussions or decision-making, but we do not use our right of veto either, because we no longer see ourselves in the CSTO. Let them decide what they want.” He also emphasized that “the differences in the views of Yerevan and Moscow regarding the ICTY and its area of responsibility prove that the point of no return has been reached.”
The Armenian elite lives with the dream of seeing itself in Europe. But what can it offer to Europe? Cognac, fruit, vegetable, herb, rose? After all, there are enough of them out there. Or rare earth elements? They need to be extracted and processed into valuable metals. And Europe is not interested in investing in risky and long-term projects. Therefore, he is not in a hurry to embrace the Armenians economically.
Selling or transferring land for the placement of military facilities is more promising. An attempt to join NATO? But who will accept it? After all, there are unresolved problems with Azerbaijan and other organizational and legal difficulties. It would be possible to agree to the deployment of military facilities, but the West insists on the liberation of Armenian territory from Russian military presence. This is dangerous: the Europeans will use it and throw it away… Then who will protect Armenia?
Events related to the 250,000-strong Armenian community in Damascus are also added to this. It would be good if the Syrian Armenians could agree with the Sunnis about the “right to forgiveness”. What if it doesn’t happen? Then part of the community will be refugees and not everyone will be able to go to Europe. Most of them will turn to their historical homeland, and this will affect Russia to a greater or lesser extent.
As a result, Pashinyan is turning to the West on the one hand, and on the other hand, he is wary of a complete rupture of relations with tried and tested allies. Yerevan’s strategic line is to “remove chestnuts” from the wood by someone else’s hand. Russia, on the other hand, will no longer use its power for the sake of an unreliable ally, as it focuses all its attention on solving the Ukrainian problem and ensuring its own security. Also, has Armenia ever been an ally for Russia? It is unlikely that such a thing will be remembered.
In an interview with TASS, the former general secretary of the CSTO Nikolay Bordyuzha called Yerevan’s decision “a huge mistake”. According to him, the statements of the Armenian leadership about the “ineffectiveness” of the organization and the lack of Russian support are not true. He emphasized that Moscow has provided “huge support” to the Armenian army and the country’s power structures – from the supply of weapons to organizational assistance.
“If the top management says that there is only damage from Russia and the CIS countries, this is completely wrong,” Bordyuja said.
The question arises: Is the position of Nikol Pashinyan a conscious and strategic policy of separation from Russia towards the West, or is it the result of internal political maneuvers and a distorted assessment of reality? The answer is ambiguous, but it is clear that Yerevan’s decision did not go without results.
Moscow’s signals became clear after Armenia froze financing of the CSTO budget. Speaking about Armenia’s financial debts, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Pankin said that non-fulfillment of obligations may lead to appropriate decisions – even to the deprivation of the country’s right to vote in the organization. Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, voiced a similar position: “Member states that do not fulfill their financial obligations to the CTMT may be deprived of their voting rights.”
It should be noted that half of the CSTO budget is paid by Russia, while other members contribute only 10%. This makes Russia’s position particularly difficult.
Many Russian experts predict that “soft pressure” against Armenia will intensify. Moscow has many economic tools at its disposal: from limiting the supply of energy carriers to sanctions against Armenian products, for example, cognac and juices.
Let’s remember Abkhazia: local residents in that area, ruled by a separatist regime, were deprived of electricity because they did not agree to Russian demands.
This shows that Moscow’s patience is running out, and Yerevan’s future demarches may lead to serious economic consequences for the country.
The sovereign right of Armenia to choose its own foreign policy course is not in doubt. But the question arises: what awaits Armenia outside the CSTO? Despite the criticism, the organization remained an important security element for Yerevan in the conditions of instability in the South Caucasus.
Withdrawal from the CSTO will create a vacuum that neither the West nor NATO can fill – despite the “artificial promises” of some partners. The example of Ukraine, which fell out of Russia’s orbit and fell into a long-term conflict, should have been a warning for Armenia.
The policy pursued by Nikol Pashinyan and his team carries clear risks for the future of Armenia. The suspension of participation in the CSTO, accusations against Russia and a clearly adventurist foreign policy will leave Armenia facing isolation and economic crisis. Moreover, trying to get out of Moscow’s influence in the current crisis will make Armenia more vulnerable to neighboring countries pursuing their own geopolitical interests in the South Caucasus.
And Russia has already shown its intention to increase pressure on Yerevan – whether through financial leverage or trade restrictions. The only question is how far both sides are willing to go so that the conflict does not reach an irreversible point.
Pashinyan’s stubbornness can lead the country to a complete collapse. Today, the future of Armenia depends on how rationally its leadership evaluates its steps.