Beniamin Matevosyan: Will Armenia join the EU in a war against Russia?

(Concerns voiced by Moscow)

The statements by Alexey Overchuk, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, mark a tectonic shift in Moscow’s rhetoric toward Yerevan. For the first time at such a high official level, what had previously remained behind closed doors or confined to expert discussions has been stated outright: Russia is seriously entertaining a scenario in which Armenia could end up in the camp of states waging open war against the RF. This is not merely a warning about economic consequences or withdrawal from integration bodies, it is a translation of the dialogue into the realm of existential military threat.

Overchuk’s logic is uncompromisingly hard-edged and pragmatic: if the European Union is officially preparing for a confrontation with Russia, then any country aspiring to EU membership automatically becomes part of a hostile military mechanism. Within this paradigm, Russia’s financial support for Armenia begins to look like subsidizing a future adversary, making it impossible to preserve the existing formats of cooperation under the EAEU and bilateral agreements.

The situation is compounded by the fact that security questions in the region are no longer theoretical. Against the backdrop of Overchuk’s remarks about the “choice between war and peace” that the Armenian people will face at the upcoming elections, news of military development within the republic takes on an ominous tone. Nikol Pashinyan’s announcement at the RISE Expo exhibition about the launch of serial production of 155mm artillery shells is a direct confirmation that Yerevan is rapidly transitioning to NATO standards. The fact that NATO-standard systems now form the core strike capability of the Armenian artillery speaks to a deep and possibly irreversible process of military-technical reorientation.

The Prime Minister’s pride in establishing domestic production of “scarce” shells, which the West is not always willing to supply in sufficient quantities, signals the country’s preparation for a prolonged high-intensity conflict in which reliance on Russia as a traditional ally is no longer seen as a viable option.

The paradox of the current political moment lies in the fact that Pashinyan continues to build his campaign around the image of a “dove of peace,” seeking to convince society that his course is the only safeguard against a major war. Moscow, however, is sending a diametrically opposite signal: moving toward the EU is the most direct path to the front line. Russia is effectively issuing an ultimatum, pointing out that the EAEU mechanisms, which have long served as the economic foundation of Armenian statehood, could be dismantled or revised as early as December. The absence of clear exit procedures in the EAEU treaty will not stand as an obstacle: the political will to “work through measures” has already been signaled.

Armenia thus finds itself at the epicenter of a global confrontation where the cost of political miscalculation rises to the scale of national catastrophe. If balancing between centers of power was once perceived as a complementary foreign policy, today that space has narrowed to its limit. For Moscow, the question is stark: either Armenia remains within a unified defense and economic space, or it becomes a staging ground for forces that openly name Russia as their principal enemy. In this situation, every new achievement of the Yerevan defense industry in adopting NATO standards, and every step toward Brussels, is perceived in the Kremlin not as a sovereign right of the state, but as preparation to participate in a war on the side of the adversary. The outcome of this escalation could be Armenia’s complete isolation from Russian resources and security arrangements, which, in an unstable region, would render the threat of war not a phantom but an inevitability.

Think about that…