Beniamin Matevosyan: Mishustin rejected Pashinyan

(TRIPP and the repeal of the EU accession law — Moscow’s demands)

The “veil of secrecy” that Nikol Pashinyan, Prime Minister, tried to draw over his Yekaterinburg talks with Mikhail Mishustin speaks far more clearly about what is actually happening than any official press release could. The Armenian premier’s statement that certain closed-door agreements had been reached, the details of which cannot be disclosed until they are implemented, in practice means only one thing: the Armenian side received a firm and uncompromising refusal on all key points.

Moscow has once again demonstrated that its position remains unified, and that any attempt by Yerevan to conduct a dialogue from a position of half-measures has no future. The lack of specifics from Pashinyan is a classic attempt to save face before the state apparatus and society amid a diplomatic dead end, since Russia’s real demands have not changed and remain strategic in nature.

Russia’s leadership clearly links economic cooperation to Yerevan’s geopolitical orientation. But what exactly does Moscow want? Mikhail Galuzin, Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, addressed this very recently. The main conditions for normalizing relations remain the complete repeal of the law on EU accession, a radical revision of the TRIPP project, and the creation of stable, protected conditions for Russian business to operate in the republic. Moscow has repeatedly said it has no intention of subsidizing the economy of a country whose leadership is trying to turn it into an anti-Russian and anti-Iranian staging ground in exchange for approval from its Western patrons.

Rather than openly admitting failure, Pashinyan prefers to shift the emphasis, urging local entrepreneurs to adapt to current realities and framing this process as a defense of sovereignty, which, in plain language, amounts to an admission that key markets have been lost. The economic consequences of this diplomatic disaster will inevitably hit every citizen of Armenia. The Russian market and the space of the EAEU are effectively closing to Armenian goods, and this isolation is taking on a long-term character.

Pashinyan’s promises to mend relations with Moscow right after the elections have proven to be populism, and his calls, a year later, for businesses to seek new export markets confirm that the export blockade will drag on. Meanwhile, European markets will not automatically open up for Armenia, they operate under strict standards and quotas that local production simply is not ready for. Agricultural workers, roughly 300,000 people, are the first to be hit, and they are already rapidly losing income with no prospects offered by the state.

The situation for Yerevan is being seriously aggravated by internal repressive measures as well, which Moscow views as a direct provocation. The high-profile arrest of Gagik Tsarukyan, rather than showcasing the regime’s strength at home, will evidently only harden the Kremlin’s final set of demands. Pashinyan, who has lost domestic legitimacy since a majority of voters did not support him in the last election, is desperately trying to lean on the security services and the Constitutional Court. In attempting to substitute the loyalty of Western players for popular support, he is paying for it with the wellbeing of his own population. Under these circumstances, Mishustin’s demonstrative refusal to compromise becomes the natural outcome of a policy in which the economic interests of an entire nation have been sacrificed to someone else’s geopolitical ambitions.

Think about that…