What’s behind Russia’s hostile response to Armenia’s deepening ties with EU?
Russia’s reaction to EU summit in Yerevan
Russia reacted harshly to the 8th European Political Community summit in Yerevan and the first-ever Armenia-EU summit, criticising Armenia’s increasingly pro-European foreign policy course.
The Russian Foreign Ministry argued that slogans such as “deepening partnership”, “supporting reforms” and “promoting democracy” conceal Brussels’ own geopolitical interests. According to Moscow, the real aim is to deprive Armenia of a reliable security system and economic stability.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the process would eventually lead to Armenia’s “irreversible involvement in the EU’s anti-Russian course”, which she argued would have negative political and economic consequences for the country.
“European officials once again said that Yerevan could rely on them during the upcoming election campaign. It is the Eurobureaucrats who have relied on Armenia — but in the worst possible sense of the word. One should be careful,” Zakharova said.
Russian MP Konstantin Zatulin, deputy chairman of the State Duma committee on CIS affairs, criticised what he described as Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s “anti-Russian views”. He went so far as to suggest that if Pashinyan wins the parliamentary elections scheduled for June, Russia should refuse to officially recognise the results.
Political analyst Hovsep Khurshudyan believes Russia is preparing to organise post-election unrest in Armenia through its networks of influence and a “fifth column”.
He was referring primarily to what Armenian authorities and independent experts describe as the “three-headed party of war” — three pro-Russian political forces seeking parliamentary representation.
This refers to the Armenia alliance led by former president Robert Kocharyan, Strong Armenia led by Russian-Armenian businessman Samvel Karapetyan and Prosperous Armenia headed by businessman Gagik Tsarukyan. The term “three-headed party of war” reflects the fact that all three advocate revising the peace process with Azerbaijan — something critics say could inevitably lead to renewed conflict.
“If Russia’s local representatives are ready for self-sacrifice, ready to stand trial and face responsibility and punishment for violating Armenia’s laws and constitution, we will see how far they are willing to go. Of course, to organise such post-election processes they need a certain level of public support inside Armenia, which they do not have,” Khurshudyan told JAMnews.
- ‘Armenia’s security guarantor led us to slaughter’ — Nikol Pashinyan
- Pashinyan-Putin meeting in Moscow: Working visit to tackle pressing issues
- ‘Russia trying to send tens of thousands of voters to Armenia’s elections’: debate in Yerevan
Moscow dismisses Yerevan summits as ‘political show’”’
Russian officials described the summits in Yerevan as a “political show” featuring grand speeches, camera flashes, public walks and the “morning jogs of Western touring guests” through the Armenian capital — a reference to the jogging routine of French President Emmanuel Macron.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova called it a “wrapper” that Brussels, Paris and other EU representatives were attempting to “sell” to Armenia during the election period.
“The European Union’s formula is simple and banal. Strangely, nobody seems to understand it: squeeze everything possible out of Armenia in order to use it for their own interests, including Russophobic and anti-Russian purposes, while giving nothing in return except PR campaigns,” Zakharova said.
According to her, with the approval of the Armenian leadership, the country is increasingly being “drawn into alien standards and mechanisms”. She argued that this was not about European culture or civilisation, but about “aggressive Euro-Atlantic approaches”.
Anger over Volodymyr Zelensky’s visit
Maria Zakharova focused in particular on Zelensky’s remarks about possible drone strikes on Red Square. Speaking at the opening of the 8th European Political Community summit, the Ukrainian president said Moscow had decided to hold this year’s Victory Day parade without military hardware because Russia feared drone attacks.
Russian officials argued that Armenia had violated its allied obligations by taking steps against Russia. According to Zakharova, a country Moscow once regarded as a friend had provided a platform to the “leader of the neo-Nazi Kyiv regime”.
“Zelensky took advantage of this incomprehensible hospitality from the Armenian hosts to try to pull himself out of political oblivion and once again voice his tired anti-Russian attacks,” she said.
Zakharova ultimately concluded that Zelensky’s visit demonstrated the kind of future the EU was preparing for Armenia.
“Personally, I think it is wonderful that Zelenskyy visited Yerevan these days. Let Armenian citizens see who Brussels considers the symbol of its successful policy. Ordinary Armenians will not receive direct benefits from possible EU financial assistance. Even if such assistance appears in the form of loans, ordinary people in Armenia will never see that money. As a result of this reckless course, Armenian citizens will end up working to serve Brussels’ interests, repay loan interest and effectively pay this Euro-Atlantic tribute out of their own pockets.”
Armenian ambassador summoned to Russia’s Foreign Ministry
The day before, Gurgen Arsenyan, Armenia’s ambassador to Russia, was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry, where he met Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin.
“The head of the diplomatic mission was informed of the categorical unacceptability of providing, during recent EU-sponsored events in Armenia, a ‘platform’ to the leader of the Kyiv neo-Nazi regime, V. Zelenskyy, for making terrorist threats against Russia. It was stressed that Moscow feels justified outrage in this regard and considers the absence of a proper negative assessment from official Yerevan of such outrageous behaviour by the aforementioned visitor inconsistent with the partnership nature of Russian-Armenian relations,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
The Armenian ambassador promised to report the issues raised by the Russian side to Yerevan.
Zatulin says Pashinyan ‘unconditional enemy of Russia’
According to Konstantin Zatulin, deputy chairman of the Russian State Duma committee on CIS affairs, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is an “unconditional enemy of Russia” who concealed his true intentions for a long time.
“We allowed ourselves to be lulled by hopes that everything would somehow work out and that he had nowhere else to go. But he used us. Before becoming prime minister, he never hid his views. He wrote that Armenia should get rid of everything from the past, get rid of Russia, leave the CSTO, leave the Eurasian Economic Union and remove our base from Gyumri. It was simply a failure of judgement on our part to think that once he came to power, he would suddenly switch completely to our side or forget his convictions,” Zatulin said in an interview with NSN.
According to Zatulin, Pashinyan “dropped the masks” in 2022 because Russia entered into confrontation with the West — “the place he aspires to”.
“And he began implementing this course ever more aggressively, broadly and on a larger scale,” Zatulin argued.
He believes that Pashinyan’s team is dragging the peoples of Russia and Armenia into conflict through its actions, with the result that “relations will suffer not only at the political level”.
Commentary by political analyst Hovsep Khurshudyan
“It is strange when they describe Armenia’s current security system — meaning membership in the CSTO — as reliable. We have seen this ‘reliability’, and they also know that we long ago understood it is not reliable.
A reliable system is one that protects us when we are threatened or when war is waged against us on our borders — not when we are told: ‘We do not know where your borders are, so we cannot help you.’ How is that reliable?”
Khurshudyan was referring to Armenia’s appeals to Russia and its CSTO allies in 2021-2022, when Azerbaijani forces advanced into sovereign Armenian territory.
“Economic ties are unreliable as well, because Russia has always used them to pressure Armenia over one issue or another. Anything Russia dislikes — even if it has nothing to do with foreign policy — can lead to the disruption of these economic, supposedly reliable ties. This applies, for example, to the Lars crossing routes. And this is then presented under the guise of bans on certain imports over alleged sanitary or Eurasian Economic Union technical violations.
So if these ties are unreliable, why should we not search for genuinely reliable allies and partnerships in both the economic and security spheres?
It is obvious why they call for this. They want us to remain dependent on Russia, so it can continue to ‘sell off’ our interests cheaply to Turkey, Azerbaijan or anyone else. We must break out of this trap.
And now Armenia is on the right path. It is inevitable that there may be difficulties during this transition, including some artificially created by Russia. But we have to go through this process.
Russia has its own representative here. That is Russian businessman Samvel Karapetyan, whom Moscow is allegedly ready to install as a governor. Former president Robert Kocharyan is the backup option.
But Karapetyan, as a citizen of two other countries, cannot become either an MP or prime minister. So their backup option is more realistic. However, we will allow neither one nor the other. Otherwise, it would mean the end of Armenia’s sovereignty, independence and security.
Russia threatens everyone with everything. Threats have become the main method of Russian foreign policy. But the maximum it is capable of is creating economic difficulties. Those difficulties are manageable — especially if our European partners support us.
As for the scenario of the ‘Ukrainisation’ of Armenia, that would be even more difficult for Russia — opening a new front, particularly against a country with which it does not even share a border.
I think the Armenian authorities have calculated all of this. And the political support being provided by Europe and the United States clearly serves as a preventive factor against such a scenario.”
