It is impossible to reach the EU “through the Turkish corridor”

On February 12, the Armenian Parliament adopted in the first reading a draft bill launching the process of the country’s accession to the EU. “63 MPs voted for the bill’s adoption, and the decision has been made,” Parliament President Alen Simonyan said.

Obviously, both officials and institutions from Russia and the EU will still have time to comment on this decision of the Armenian parliament (we will return to the topic of the EU reaction or coordination of this step with Brussels at the very end); however, the general features of some potential comments are already clear.

Even though the authors of the initiative do not hide that they seek to achieve Armenia’s withdrawal from the EAEU, comments may come from Moscow: “the start of the EU accession process is the beginning of withdrawal from the EAEU.” Perhaps Moscow does not see this, but this wording is beneficial to the Armenian authorities in terms of propaganda, as it creates the illusion that the process “will lead Armenia to the EU at some point.”

It is also noteworthy that, unlike political figures, the Russian expert community assesses the situation more soberly and points out that the process initiated is fraught not only with economic suicide but may also generate a number of risks of a different nature. But what can be hidden under the phrase “the start of the EU accession process is the beginning of withdrawal from the EAEU?”

Obviously, this is not only the date of the referendum but also the inclusion in the draft of the new Constitution of a clause on the European aspirations of the Republic of Armenia or a change in the structure of the Government of the Republic of Armenia with the inclusion of the position of Deputy Prime Minister for European integration. One of the features of the discussion of the initiative of the “Pashinyan’s coalition partners” was that it was repeatedly and rightly noted that it was worth thinking not only about the economic consequences of the process that had begun but also about the consequences of breaking off with the EAEU. A break that can lead to the implementation of at least two scenarios:

1. Due to the lack of alternatives, Armenia’s economic dependence on Turkey may acquire the same features that it has in the context of relations between Turkey and present-day Syria (due to the unprecedented spread of the Turkish lira in the country, discussions are underway in Damascus about the country’s inclusion in the Turkish currency zone). In other words, the Turkish lira may become Syria’s national currency. After that, when the right moment comes, there may be military intervention.

2. Rapid Turkish military intervention. Nikol Pashinyan knows best not only that there is no way to get to the EU “via the Turkish corridor,” but also that leaving the EAEU in terms of its political significance will be comparable to leaving the CSTO, that is, with the loss of the “security umbrella.”
In fact, our entire analysis could fit into the answer to just one question: Is the initiative coordinated with Europe, with official Brussels? The answer to this question is as follows: it is not necessary to coordinate with Europe; it is necessary to coordinate with Turkey, since it is the beneficiary of the rupture of Russian-Armenian relations. Official Yerevan, however, is obviously provoking Russia to expel Armenia from the EAEU and the CSTO.

Think about it…