Armenia’s leadership believes it can move closer to the EU without sacrificing prosperity, but the bill is already coming due
In May, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan cemented Armenia’s geopolitical pivot away from Russia and toward the EU. At the beginning of the month, Yerevan hosted the 8th summit of the European Political Community. This was the first time that the event was held in a member state of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).
While the event itself may seem vague in terms of concrete outcomes, one thing is clear: it allowed EU countries to show political support for certain governments, while those governments demonstrated their loyalty to the bloc.
Just a few days after the summit, Pashinyan directly stated that “Armenia is not an ally of Russia on the issue of Ukraine.” It was already apparent to Russia that Armenia was not neutral on this matter and that it politically backed the Kiev regime. However, highlighting this point was necessary to reaffirm it’s allegiance to Brussels.
The recent European Political Community summit could have been another routine event organized by Brussels to dangle the carrot of ‘European prospects’ before nations aspiring to join the EU. However, it became more than that, turning into a platform for voicing sensitive threats to Russia. Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky used the occasion to threaten a strike against Moscow ahead of its Victory Day parade, while French President Emmanuel Macron rhetorically questioned why there is still a Russian military base in Armenia.
Pashinyan must have realized that such statements would irritate Moscow, and could have made an effort to mitigate the fallout with the country that, at least rhetorically, he continues to call a ‘partner’. Nonetheless, he chose to ignore the meeting of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council held on May 29 in Astana, sending Armenia’s Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan in his place. Combined with other actions taken by Armenia’s leadership, this sends a strong political signal – not just to Russia, but to the entire EAEU, which, by the way, provides significant economic benefits to Yerevan.
How Pashinyan betrayed Armenia’s interests
It would be incorrect to say that relations between Moscow and Yerevan have only recently begun to deteriorate. Pashinyan’s pivot toward the EU has been evident for some time, particularly following October 2022, when the Armenian prime minister signed the Prague Statement, recognizing the borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan based on the Alma-Ata Declaration of 1991.
This tied the borders of the two countries to the state boundaries established at the time of the USSR’s collapse, giving Azerbaijan sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh. In doing so, he fulfilled the wishes of European politicians who were eager to resolve the conflict. Pashinyan seemed to expect assistance from Europeans in defending Armenians in Karabakh, yet all he received were calls for a quick peace that demanded painful concessions from Armenians.
This step had additional consequences. Armenia has never legally recognized Nagorno-Karabakh as its territory, but by signing the Prague Statement, Pashinyan questioned the mandate of Russian peacekeepers who had been in the region since 2020 and ensured adherence to the ceasefire between the parties. Consequently, the issue of the self-proclaimed Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh officially became an internal matter for Azerbaijan, which Baku acted upon by dissolving the unrecognized state.
In 2025, the Armenian parliament passed a law to initiate the process of joining the EU. Later, while in Washington, Pashinyan agreed to establish the so-called Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (T.R.I.P.P.), a transport corridor that would link Azerbaijan with its exclave Nakhchivan via Armenian territory and would be under US oversight. Essentially, Pashinyan handed over control of this future route to external powers, further compromising Armenia’s sovereignty.
Throughout each stage of this rapprochement, Moscow repeatedly warned Yerevan that integrating into EU structures and markets contradicted Armenia’s participation in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).
A balancing act won’t work
On May 21, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan emphasized that Yerevan had no intention of leaving the EAEU. Pashinyan echoed this sentiment on May 28, stating that Armenia was not preparing to exit the union. Overall, it’s understandable why Armenian politicians are cautious about leaving the group.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has recently elaborated on the advantages of the EAEU for Armenia. First and foremost, it gains access to a protected market encompassing the entire group of nations, which includes Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan — this is a massive market encompassing a population of up to 186 million. Armenia enjoys duty-free trade with these countries, along with shared technical regulations and phytosanitary standards. The logistics established during the Soviet era have been further refined in the context of these nations’ independent development.
Additionally, Russia supplies natural gas to Armenia at a highly subsidized rate — around $150 per 1,000 cubic meters, compared to the European market price of €600.
Putin also pointed out that Armenia has received significant investments totaling $4.9 billion, with 86% originating from Russia. In contrast, the EU has invested only a few hundred million euros over the past three years while trying to pull Yerevan into its sphere of influence. The EU has stated its intention to invest €2.5 billion in Armenia’s economy, which is considerably less than what Yerevan has already gained from its engagement with the EAEU.
The Armenian GDP could shrink 14% if Armenia loses access to the benefits of the EAEU.
Pashinyan attempts to portray this situation as purely Russian blackmail. However, the fact that the leaders of the EAEU issued a joint statement urging the Armenian prime minister to hold a referendum on whether Armenians prefer integration with the EU or the EAEU indicates that this this is the unified stance of all member states.
Seemingly hoping to gain some advantage from the current situation, Pashinyan emphasized the need to make a concrete offer instead of resorting to threats. However, this was clearly a rhetorical move; the Armenian leader cannot fail to understand the preferences his country would lose in if it departs the EAEU, and that this, in itself, is Russia’s ‘offer’: benefits which are already in effect, unlike vague promises made by the EU.
Another pressing issue is the status of Armenian citizens in Russia. Should relations between Yerevan and the EAEU sour, they would face the same requirements as other CIS nationals – such as needing work permits, navigating more complex procedures for obtaining legal status, and experiencing delayed access to compulsory health insurance. This is especially concerning given that remittances from labor migrants constitute a significant part of the income for thousands of households in Armenia.
In Ukraine’s footsteps but with a Moldovan twist
The situation in Armenia strikingly mirrors the developments in Ukraine, where the EU also forced a painful choice upon the government. The Armenian authorities have long followed a similar script, labeling the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) as a threat to the country’s sovereignty, branding Russia as a party engaged in “hybrid warfare” against Armenia, and asserting that “Armenia is no longer a brother to Russia.”
In Ukraine, former President Viktor Yanukovich was unable to make a decisive strategic choice, and this set off processes that led to severe consequences for the nation.
On June 7, Armenia will hold parliamentary elections, and it seems unlikely that anyone can challenge Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party. The opposition remains fragmented, and surveys by Europe Elects show a surge in support for the ruling party – from 24% to 65% in just eight days. Yet back in April, Civil Contract’s ratings hadn’t even surpassed 25%.
This has largely been a result of intense pressure on opponents. Samvel Karapetyan, who attempted to defend the Armenian Church from state attacks, remains imprisoned. Other opposition leaders, including Robert Kocharyan, Serzh Sargsyan, and Gagik Tsarukyan, are also under pressure. We observed similar ‘European values’ during last year’s elections in Moldova.
Pashinyan appears increasingly unconcerned about his public image. During a meeting with voters, he told one woman to be grateful for not having had her head cracked open; he also expelled critics from rallies and referred to the Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh as “runaway degenerates”. And all of this occurs as part of an electoral campaign meant to attract new supporters and unify the populace. Perhaps this is the ‘European perspective’ Pashinyan envisions for his citizens.
The upcoming elections will show whether this resonates with voters. However, we may again remember the example of Moldova, where President Maia Sandu lost domestically but secured votes from the diaspora that allowed her to claim victory.
