2024-04-10 16:47:44
Source: Trend
Author: Elchin Alioglu
The processes related to the meeting of US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, European Commission Chairman Ursula von der Leyen and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in Brussels on April 5 have been activated.
According to Western statements after this meeting presented as a “conference”, the European Union will give 270 million euros to Armenia for 4 years. The USA will help Armenians in the amount of 65 million dollars.
Unlike the official Yerevan, Armenians consider the discussions in Brussels unsuccessful. The leitmotif of the comments in the Armenian media can be characterized by the statement of one of the Armenian politicians: “The USA and the European Union showed candy to Armenians and gave them the paper of that candy.”
Are the processes after the Brussels meeting really as the Armenians say? Will the aid of the EU and the US to Armenia be at the stated level, or was an agreement reached on some specific issues in the discussions held behind closed doors during the meeting, and those points are not disclosed to the general public?
The questions are not rhetorical, and the processes experienced will influence the political, economic, etc. results of the meeting in Brussels. stipulates that it will seriously affect the processes, especially the events at the geopolitical level.
Let’s not forget that the High Commissioner for Foreign Policy and Security of the European Union, Josep Borrell, participated in the discussions in Brussels.
The position of J. Borrell, a representative of the radicalized libertarian trend in pan-European politics, is not distinguished by its novelty: he is a supporter of minimizing the influence of the Russian Federation, Iran and China in the Eurasian space, depriving the mentioned states of their active role in the processes.
In the negotiations with Nikol Pashinyan, J. Borrell actually acted as the representative of French President Emmanuel Macron.
Since E. Macron promised “full and total support” to Armenia and Armenians in general, he expected that a serious agreement would be signed at the official Yerevan Brussels meeting to ensure its security and especially the purchase of weapons and military equipment.
Although the official explanation of Borrell’s participation in the discussions was “consideration of ways to support Yerevan in preventing aggressive, rude and provocative foreign interference in the political, public and media spaces of Armenia”, in reality he should have brought E. Macron’s strategic plan to the attention of the parties.
In the current situation, the United States and the European Union do not consider ensuring Armenia’s security as the realization of the options of defying Russia, especially openly arming Yerevan.
Armenia has been dependent on Russia since the first day of its independence, and that process has become stronger over the years and has reached its current state.
The borders of Armenia are guarded by border guards of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSS), the Russians have the 102nd military base in Gyumri, and groups with forces dependent on Russia in Armenian society and politics have not yet weakened. Let’s not forget that the most important areas and sectors of Armenia’s economy depend on Russian state and private companies, Armenians are totally dependent on Russia in terms of the range of foreign trade and investments, along with gross domestic product (GDP) and gross industrial product (GIP).
Finally, the preferences created by the membership of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Eurasian Customs Union, in which Russia plays a leading role (exemption from double taxes and most of the payments with duties in trade with the CIS countries, as well as electricity, natural gas, fuel and lubricants, food and etc.) are the main conditions that saved the Armenian economy from collapse.
If we take into account that Armenia is among the countries used by Russia for parallel exports to evade the sanctions imposed by the West after the start of military operations in Ukraine, the real reasons for the official Yerevan’s “great economic growth achieved in the last two years” are revealed.
The realization of the “Western-leaning, fully sovereign Yerevan” strategy declared by France regarding Armenia will not be easy for the reasons listed.
Despite the declarations of Ursula von der Leyen, Joseph Borrell and Emmanuel Macron, Nikol Pashiyan’s administration will not be able to reduce relations with Russia to a minimum in the near term.
The tightening of instructions and orders received from the West naturally makes Yerevan look for ways out.
The latest demarche of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, Ararat Mirzoyan, also indicates the attacks of the Pashinyan administration.
A. Mirzoyan refused to participate in the meeting of the foreign ministers of the CIS countries to be held on April 12 in Minsk.
Although the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia did not disclose the reason for this demarche, it is clear that the decision is related to Yerevan’s desire to reduce dependence on Moscow and integrate into the European Union.
Thus, Armenia is currently among the countries that have either left the CIS or are not actively participating in the activities of this structure. After direct military conflicts with Russia, Georgia and Ukraine left the CIS. Although Moldova has not refused membership in the CIS, it does not participate in the activities of the organization.
Today, Nikol Pashinyan made a speech in the Armenian Parliament and clarified the policy implemented by Yerevan after the Brussels meeting, even if only partially.
“Delimitation of the border in Tavush can prevent a new war with Azerbaijan,” said N. Pashinyan.
He said that, however, this does not guarantee that there will be no new war: “Nevertheless, delimitation must be done. It is difficult to admit, but it is a fact.”
According to N. Pashinyan, the determination of internationally recognized borders of Armenia is the main factor for the country’s security: “I was convinced of this in 2022. I understood that the determination of borders is decisive for our security in the near, medium and long term. So, in 2022- A political-psychological process began after 2006. This can be called the process of defining the border between real and historical Armenia.”
N. Pashinyan emphasized that there are serious contradictions between historical and real Armenia: “Historical” and real Armenia not only do not match each other, on the contrary, they are often at enmity with each other and pose serious threats to each other.
Emphasizing implicitly that France and the European Union insisted that Armenia leave the ranks of the CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), N. Pashinyan tried to explain Yerevan’s position: “Deployment of CSTO peacekeepers would lead to the creation of a puppet government in Armenia. CSTO observers are not allies in Armenia, but peacekeepers. As such, Armenia was left out of its security system.”
He did not hide the fact that he was under pressure from the West and was wary of Russia: “The USA and the EU will not come and solve Armenia’s problems. Regardless of whether it is artificial or not, we create expectations that some allies and relatives will come and solve our problems. We have to solve all our problems in order to fix them. and it is necessary to strengthen. We have not taken any wrong steps in our relations with Russia. There is no place where our colleagues accuse us of not fulfilling our obligations. Unfortunately, there are many contrary cases.”
N. Pashinyan emphasized that the extension of the European Union Observation and Monitoring Mission in Armenia (EUMA) in the country for another 2 years is currently being discussed.
The issue of extending the presence of the EU observer mission in Armenia for another two years is being discussed
In general, the closed session of the Armenian parliament on the issue of border delimitation was very tense. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ararat Mirzoyan, stubbornly defended the theses proposed by Nikol Pashinyan and showed special activity.
“Jokhovurd” newspaper of Armenia informed about this.
“From the answers of Mirzoyan and Grigoryan, it became clear that the Armenian authorities do not really know when to start work on border delimitation and which maps will be used as a basis. The parliamentary opposition especially stated that the contact line established on September 24, 1993 is for delimitation and demarcation. should be taken as a basis.
Before the process has started, Azerbaijan should be forced to stop border “provocations”, otherwise it will be revealed that Armenia agreed to delimitation under pressure. The opposition has also stated that under no circumstances should the territory be given to Azerbaijan without holding a referendum. Mirzoyan and Grigoryan’s answers to the raised questions were unclear,” the report said.
N. Pashinyan’s deputy Mger Grigoryan noted that he is ready to participate in such a meeting again. It is not yet known exactly when the border delimitation work will start and which maps will be used as a basis.
The Armenian opposition opposed the implementation of the delimitation process without a referendum.
Yesterday, a closed meeting dedicated to border delimitation and demarcation issues was held at the initiative of the opposition in the National Assembly of Armenia. The main speakers were Foreign Ministers A. Mirzoyan and M. Grigoryan.
Armenia has returned to its “slippery” position regarding the return of 4 non-enclave villages of Gazakh (Bağanis Ayrim, Gizil Hajili, Ashagi Eskipara and Kheyrimli) and the signing of a peace agreement. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said during his visit to Tavush last month that “if we do not return the villages, there will be a war” and “we can start delimitation from Tavush”, but his deputy, chairman of the delimitation commission, Mger Grigoryan, refused to do so at a closed session of the parliament yesterday.
Grigoryan said that there is no final decision on starting delimitation from Tavush: “The decision to start delimitation in that region can be made if a consensus is reached on fundamental issues. These are security, social-economic and legal issues.”
… The content, course, amplitude and possible prospects of the geopolitical processes in the South Caucasus are clarified, even if partially. It seems that N. Pashinyan, who was delighted with the security guarantees he received orally from E. Macron and J. Borrell, will choose the path of escalation and continue to create artificial obstacles in the process aimed at signing the peace agreement.
This means very serious risks and challenges for the region.