Opinion

Opinion: "The EU may play vital role in transforming Armenia into a modern state"

26 March 2017

In this op-ed for commonspace.eu, Dr Benyamin Poghosyan, Executive Director of the Political Science Association of Armenia, comments about EU-Armenia relations now that the two sides have initialled a new framework agreement

On March 21, 2017 Armenia and the EU initialed a new bilateral Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement. The negotiations were launched in December 2015 and a decision on their start was made during the Eastern Partnership May 2015 Riga summit. This is an important milestone in bilateral relations, especially taking into account Armenia's last minute withdrawal in 2013 from initialing its Association Agreement negotiated within the framework of the EU Eastern Partnership program.

Armenia's relations with the West are one of the key foreign policy priorities of the country. The landlocked country attempts to pursue a more balanced foreign policy, trying to leverage its dependence on Russia through fostering deeper relations with the US, NATO and EU. The task is not an easy one, however, especially after the start of Russian President Vladimir Putin's third term, which was marked by a sudden and steep deterioration of Russia's relations with key Western players due to the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria, and as well as in response to Western concerns over growing Russian authoritarianism.

Hard security dilemmas compel Armenia to be in a military alliance with Russia, and to hosting Russian military base in its territory. The country's membership in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) should also be viewed through the paradigm of the Armenian - Russian strategic alliance. The decision to withdraw from its Association Agreement with the EU and instead, to enter the Russia-led Customs Union and then the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) was based mostly on this security calculus too.

Simultaneously, Armenia understands that it urgently needs sweeping reforms in almost all spheres of the society to overcome the legacy of the Soviet period and to be able to turn back the negative trends in economy and demography. Obviously developed and functioning institutions are key prerequisites for statehood and this is especially true for Armenia, as it is located in the nexus of geopolitical struggle between much more powerful neighbors. The growing discontent among the society towards the domestic status quo established since the mid-1990s is another factor to accelerate the reforms.

Therefore, it is not surprising that all political forces, including the ruling Republican Party, involved in the current parliamentary elections are pointing out the necessity to launch fundamental reforms dealing with corruption and provide sufficient level of management within state institutions. And in this process, the best example and primary source for inspiration is not Russia, but the EU.

Armenia is perceived as a "small Russia", with the same domestic problems seen in Russia. The only difference is in scale. Russia, therefore cannot be the model for dramatically changing the current state system in Armenia. Even more, for some parts of Armenian society, Russia is viewed as an obstacle to successful and systemic domestic reforms.

In contrast, despite the EU's many internal problems - the rise of populism, the migrant crisis, growing terrorist threats, Brexit, Greece debt, and so on - the Armenian public perceives the EU as a key source of support for fostering much anticipated and necessary economic, political and judicial reforms aimed at improving institution building process and thus creating a healthier base for further development of independent statehood. Functioning state institutions, the rule of law, relatively low level of corruption, welfare system, - are all tangible achievements in Europe, which may and should adapted for the local circumstances in Armenia, and implemented. Of course, everybody understands that a strategic alliance with Russia puts some limitations on Armenia's ability to interact with the EU, especially taking into account the current impasse in Russia - West relations, but there is a clear perception in Armenian society that if Armenia wants to keep its independence, the reforms in key areas should be undertaken as soon as possible. The April 2016 short war in Karabakh revealed the fact that even the strategic alliance with Russia does not automatically guarantee the security of Armenia and Karabakh.

Thus, there is a clear understanding both in Armenian society and within the political establishment that the EU may play vital role in transforming Armenia into a modern state. The Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement is a right step towards closer cooperation, but it is only the beginning. As with any agreement the implementation stage is the most important one. And here much depends not only from Armenia but from EU too. For example, the EU should not view Armenia as a state totally within Russian sphere of influence where nothing can be reached without Moscow's consent. Supporting Armenia through fostering various reforms and institution building process is the only viable way for the West to keep channels open for interaction with Armenia and have additional sources of leverage in the rapidly changing geopolitical juncture of the South Caucasus. Even more, Armenia, as a member of the Eurasian Economic Union and with close ties with EU, in a midterm perspective, can become a platform for EU - EAEU dialogue and engagement. The level of trusted relations with the US and active cooperation with NATO makes Armenia more suitable for a role of a connection point and not as a competition between Russia and the West. Thus, Armenia and the EU will only gain in furthering bilateral cooperation, but both sides need to demonstrate more political will and determination to turn the possibilities deriving from the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement into real and relevant opportunities.

Dr Benyamin Poghosyan is the Executive Director of the Political Science Association of Armenia.

related content on commonspace.eu:

Armenia and EU initial "Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement"

LIVE BLOG: Visit of President Serzh Sargsyan to Brussels

Commentary: There is a lot of good-will towards Armenia in the EU, but Russia remains the elephant in the room

"The EU and Armenia are close to finalising negotiations on a new framework agreement, but there are still open issues"

EU and Armenia upbeat on progress in negotiations on a new agreement

Photo: President Serzh Sargsyan of Armenia and European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker at their meeting in Brussels in February 2017.

Latest

Editor's choice

Monday Commentary

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

Editor's choice

News

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

13 November 2026

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

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”

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

Opinion: "The EU may play vital role in transforming Armenia into a modern state"

Latest

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Popular

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

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