Anti-Russian foothold: why is Armenia choosing NATO?

If the statement made by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on September 23 at the Armenian Democracy Forum had come from a member of the parliamentary opposition, he and his team would likely have accused that person of sabotage, spreading panic, pessimism, and defeatism.

What exactly did Pashinyan say?

The leader of the Civil Contract party stated that Armenia might not be accepted into the European Union even if it meets all necessary standards. “We understand that even after this, we may not become an EU member, but our main goal is to meet EU standards. If we succeed and are accepted, it will be great; if not, we will still have our own result,” he said.

It is clear from Pashinyan’s remarks that he acknowledges the futility of trying to join the EU. But what about NATO? Does Armenia have a chance of joining NATO? Speaking at the 108th two-day Rose-Roth Seminar of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Yerevan, Armenian Defense Minister Suren Papikyan stated that the Defense Ministry regularly receives professional advisory support from the US and France. Greece also provides comprehensive assistance in several areas.

Let’s pause and examine the geopolitical essence of Papikyan’s statement. Armenian authorities justify their complete rejection of cooperation with Moscow—which has regional influence—by claiming that the Russian 102nd military base in Armenia is allegedly perceived by Turkey as a “threat to its security.” In other words, the logic goes: Turkey has issues with Russia, and Armenia’s cooperation with Russia would create problems for Armenia’s relations with Turkey.

Yet Greece and Turkey are closer to war than Turkey and Russia—from the “militarization of islands” in the Aegean Sea to the Cyprus issue, all of which could ignite a new Greek-Turkish conflict. But this does not stop Armenian authorities from not only cooperating with Greece but doing so institutionally, as stated by Defense Minister Papikyan himself.

This raises another critical question: What is the goal behind Armenia’s actions toward NATO integration? Are Turkey and Azerbaijan NATO’s enemies? No. NATO’s enemy is Russia. Does NATO modernize the armies of non-member states to strengthen their defense against their own enemies? No. NATO involves these armies in its programs to eventually draw them into conflict with NATO’s enemies.

Can we then say that Armenia is being prepared for war with Russia or for joining the camp fighting against Russia? In this context, Armenia has no place in either the EU or NATO. Not because of civilizational differences with member states, but for one simple reason: Pashinyan has already made Armenia an anti-Russian foothold without joining NATO or the EU.

This is evident not only in the diminishing Russian military presence in the region but also in Armenia’s exclusion from parallel import chains to Russia, and in the August 8 document granting the US access to Armenian customs. Why should NATO and the EU spend more on Armenia, integrate it, offer security guarantees—especially when a key NATO member, Turkey, sees Armenia as a threat—when Armenia is already “anti-Russia”? In other words, if danger arises, why should NATO fight for Armenia against Turkey?

Think about it…