Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Opinion

Opinion: Does Russia lose Armenia to France?

14 March 2024
Dr. Anzhela Mnatsakanyan

In an interview with France24 during his February 2024 visit to Paris, Nikol Pashinyan highlighted Azerbaijan's perception of Armenia as "Western Azerbaijan" and expressed concerns about Azerbaijan's preparations for a new war, writes Dr. Anzhela Mnatsakanyan in this op-ed for commonspace.eu. "This interview marked a significant departure as Pashinyan openly scrutinized Russia's policies towards Armenia and hinted at the possibility of a new war. The timing of this interview, a few days before Azerbaijan presented a re-edited version of the so-called "Peace treaty," suggested that the "peace" offered by Azerbaijan is more about the capitulation of Armenia. This interview was a kind of “call for help” from Pashinyan to Western countries on the eve of a possible new war."

What established the asymmetrical partnership between Russia and Armenia? What are the drivers for its Eurasian choice? Armenia’s position towards Russian initiatives was framed by the country’s key security problem, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has pushed Yerevan toward Russia. The “strategic partnership” between Moscow and Yerevan is completely unequal, and arises in a “3G” form, with Armenia as a recipient of guns and other weapons; gas supplied at beneficial rates; and goods, as both a major trading ally and with Russia as the primary destination for Armenian migrant labour.

After Azerbaijan seized Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia started to show signs that the country was moving away from Russia’s security umbrella and here France ramped up very quickly the role of Armenia’s possible next strategic partner.

After the Munich Security Conference, Nikol Pashinyan, Prime Minister of Armenia embarked on a two-day working visit to France alongside his wife, Anna Hakobyan. During his time in Paris, Pashinyan engaged with President Macron, and Senate representatives, and partook in the burial ceremony of WWII resistance fighter, Misak Manushyan and his wife at the Pantheon, a momentous event imbued with political significance. This ceremony served as a platform for France to explicitly convey its unwavering support to Armenia.

France strategically sought to underscore the French people's stance towards Armenia, emphasizing the historical importance of the Armenian Community in France. Pashinyan held discussions with leaders of French business, expressing his interest in fostering French business initiatives in Armenia. Noteworthy was Pashinyan's meeting with Anne Hidalgo, the Mayor of Paris and a speculated candidate for the next French Presidency. Hidalgo's prior humanitarian efforts during the Nagorno-Karabakh blockade and her visit to bordering areas of Armenia added a layer of significance to their interaction. Additionally, Pashinyan engaged with the new Prime Minister of France, focusing their discussions on economic collaboration, energy, water resources, and tourism.

A pivotal moment in this diplomatic venture was Prime Minister Pashinyan's interview with French 24, where he conveyed critical messages. Pashinyan highlighted Azerbaijan's perception of Armenia as "Western Azerbaijan" and expressed concerns about Azerbaijan's preparations for a new war. He underscored President Aliyev's reluctance to sign a peace agreement based on the recognition of territorial integrity, emphasizing an arms race initiated by Azerbaijan. Pashinyan also addressed Armenia's frozen participation in the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) and raised issues concerning the Russian military base in Armenia. Notably, he disclosed Moscow's alleged encouragement of Armenians to initiate a revolution against the government, attributing it to propagandist efforts directed personally at him. Furthermore, Pashinyan discussed the activities of Russian servicemen in Armenia and the arrest of Dmitry Setrakov in Armenia by the Russian military police.

This interview marked a significant departure as Pashinyan openly scrutinized Russia's policies towards Armenia and hinted at the possibility of a new war. The timing of this interview, a few days before Azerbaijan presented a re-edited version of the so-called "Peace treaty," suggested that the "peace" offered by Azerbaijan is more about the capitulation of Armenia. This interview was a kind of “call for help” from Pashinyan to Western countries on the eve of a possible new war.

Simultaneously, as Pashinyan returned to Armenia, French Armed Forces Minister Sébastien Lecornu arrived to Armenia to personally deliver defence weapons. The arms agreement, initiated in October 2023, materialized in February 2024 with the arrival of weapons in Yerevan. This development contrasted starkly with Armenia's prior attempts to purchase weapons from Russia, where only a limited quantity arrived after a bid submission in 2020. The visit of Minister Lecornu and the discussions with Armenian Defence Minister Suren Papikyan underscored the deepening defence links between France and Armenia. An agreement was reached for the French Army to conduct three mountain combat training sessions in Armenia in 2024. Worth noting is Armenia's withdrawal from hosting CSTO exercises in 2023, indicative of the evolving dynamics in its defence relationships.

On the whole, in Armenia there is a lack of trust in Russia. Armenians feel betrayed by Moscow after Azerbaijan launched an offensive to retake the breakaway Armenian-inhabited region of Nagorno-Karabakh in September. Russia had a peacekeeping contingent stationed there, which stood aside and didn't interfere. Trends in public opinion also impose certain constraints on policymaking in Armenia.

At the same time, CSTO leaders have demonstrated a repeated propensity to shoot themselves in the foot. This pattern is exemplified by President Aleksandr Lukashenko of Belarus, who unequivocally stated that in the event of a conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, CSTO members would refrain from intervention. This stance directly contradicts the principles outlined in the CSTO charter. Lukashenko's position seems to be influenced by the perception that Azerbaijan is considered an allied nation by the CSTO member countries, except of course by Armenia.

On the eve of a new possible war, while dialogue with Moscow remains almost completely nonproductive, Armenia needs to find allies, and we can only hope that Yerevan will not overestimate the quality of the cards it is playing in Europe.

source: Dr. Anzhela Mnatsakanyan holds an Advanced Master's Degree of Arts in European Interdisciplinary Studies from the College of Europe in Natolin and a Master's Degree in International Relations from Yerevan State University.
photo: French President Emanuel Macron welcomed Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan at the Elysee Palace in February 2024

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut