Sovereignty in a European way: Armenia cannot but have hostile relations with Russia

One of the central topics of political discourse in Armenia, which attracts the attention of both analysts and the Armenian media, is Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s potential visit to Moscow for Victory Day in the Great Patriotic War.

While the media emphasize the significance of this visit for Pashinyan himself—potentially marking the beginning of his efforts to secure support from the Russian Federation ahead of future National Assembly elections—the situation is noteworthy from another angle: Armenia’s Western partners are closely watching. Moreover, they are not just watching. There are obvious attempts to interfere in Armenia’s internal affairs.

Within the country, representatives of Western “soft power” are spreading the narrative by all available means that Pashinyan should under no circumstances travel to Moscow or shake hands with “the bloodthirsty dictator, Putin.”

The same narratives are being propagated by foreign policy actors. Back in mid-April, the head of European diplomacy, Kaja Kallas, warned all EU candidate countries against participating in Victory Day celebrations in Moscow. According to her, the EU will take any trips to Russia on this day seriously.
Of course, Armenia is not officially a candidate for EU membership, but the bill on the beginning of Armenia’s accession to the European Union has already been adopted by the Armenian Parliament.

Moreover, the same argument—that European integration is incompatible with Pashinyan’s visit to Moscow on May 9—was reiterated by Estonian journalists during the recent visit of the head of the Civil Contract Party to Estonia.

The situation of the 2012-2013 period repeats itself, when the EU, as part of negotiations on association agreements with post-Soviet countries—including Armenia—gave Yerevan an ultimatum: either align with the EU or Moscow. In 2013, the EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Neighborhood Policy, Stefan Füle, “jokingly” stated that he would sue Armenia if Yerevan failed to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union.

Times are changing, but the methods remain the same. Today, Füle’s example is followed by Kallas, whose statements can only be seen as an attempt to interfere in Armenia’s internal affairs—an effort to impose on Yerevan a foreign policy course that the EU needs. This is what sovereignty looks like in the Pashinyan era.

Think about it…