Beniamin Matevosyan: Is Armenia leaving the EAEU?

(As expected, the economic problems did not end after June 7)

Today’s session of the RA government marked yet another manifestation of Armenia’s geopolitical pivot: official Yerevan has effectively begun moving along the scenario of withdrawing from the EAEU, which closely resembles its strategy of gradually breaking away from the CSTO. In an attempt to shift responsibility for the inevitable consequences onto external factors, Nikol Pashinyan launched the manipulative claim that it is not Armenia that is leaving the integration bloc, but the union itself that is leaving the Republic, and that the problems arising from this fall within the responsibility of Armenian businesses.

“I have questions for our partners regarding the statement they adopted in my absence, and we need to understand what this means in practice. Can any country of the Eurasian Economic Union adopt such decisions with respect to any other member and simply wake up one day and present them? In my assessment, if the answer is yes, then the EAEU is declaring its own self-dissolution,”* Pashinyan said.

This passage clearly illustrates the Prime Minister’s attempt to deflect blame for the country’s economic isolation and shift it onto the EAEU allies. By calling what is happening a “self-dissolution of the union,” Pashinyan resorts to crude political manipulation. Rather than acknowledging that the economic sanctions and market closures are a direct consequence of his own destructive foreign policy, he attempts to portray the situation as though the integration bloc is dismantling itself for no reason whatsoever.

“To these 16 destinations, we exported samples [of Armenian products] in the most literal sense of the word, because the market must make its own assessment. Let us speak plainly and without sugarcoating: if these samples meet the standard, success is guaranteed, it simply cannot fail to follow. But if there is a problem with the standard, success is out of the question. Whether you extend the credit for a year, or six years, or we provide the funds ourselves, there will be no result. Every company must face the fact that it alone bears responsibility for its own success. The government only covers the rear, but the company itself moves forward,” said the Civil Contract leader.

These words make unmistakably clear that the state is abandoning its basic obligations to domestic producers. Pashinyan is openly telling businesspeople to find new markets on their own, the markets that were lost solely because of his political decisions. His claims that the government is “covering the rear” ring hollow and cynical, as the executive branch is effectively washing its hands of the matter, leaving the private sector to face a sweeping crisis alone.

“There will be no more falsified grape harvest figures in Armenia. We will no longer act through persuasion. I welcome this, because no one today can hold us to account. For eight years we have been saying: ‘Listen, one day this moment will come. For what reason and under what circumstances, we do not know, but the moment will come. Change, and become more serious.’ All these producers must understand that this is a matter of the country’s standards and a matter of our shared reputation,” Pashinyan noted.

In this statement, he places the full burden of responsibility for the closure of Russian markets squarely on Armenian entrepreneurs themselves, accusing them of producing substandard goods and falsifying data. The discussion of standards and reputation serves merely as a convenient cover for justifying his own damaging conduct. By shifting the blame onto the business community, which has fed this country for years, the Prime Minister attempts to obscure the fact that the real cause of the market losses is not grape quality issues, but his own geopolitical maneuvering.

The restrictions from Moscow that are now hitting the Armenian economy are not the result of abstract market fluctuations or phytosanitary non-compliance, they are a direct response to the actions of Pashinyan personally, his government, and his parliamentary faction in the NA, all of which have been aimed at drawing closer to the camp of states openly opposing Russia and openly preparing for war. It is clear that the Russian leadership has drawn its conclusions from the Ukrainian crisis and no longer intends to economically subsidize a country whose leadership has chosen to align with the opposing geopolitical camp. Pashinyan’s willingness to sacrifice key economic ties for the sake of short-term political survival puts the stability of the entire state at risk. Domestic manipulation and attempts to shift blame onto entrepreneurs will no longer be able to conceal the scale of the catastrophe toward which the country’s current leadership is steering the republic.

Think about that…