Opinion: Why Armenians are disappointed with NATO and the EU

Despite being firmly anchored in the Russian sphere of influence, Armenia has been quite successful in developing partner relations with the EU and NATO. In the early 1990s, Armenia joined the NATO Partnership for Peace program, and since 2005 bilateral relations have been developing within Individual Partnership Actions Plans. NATO played a key role in developing Armenia's peacekeeping potential and supported defence reforms, including defence education. Armenian peacekeepers participated in NATO-led operations in Iraq, Kosovo, and Afghanistan; Armenian troops took part in several NATO-led drills; and each year a "NATO Week" was held in Yerevan.

Armenia was also actively fostering its relations with the EU. Yerevan accepted the EU's offer to participate in the Eastern Partnership programme and in summer 2013 successfully finished negotiations over the Armenia-EU Association Agreement. Tensions in Russia-West relations, and Russia's pressure, prevented Armenia from signing the Association Agreement, however, despite the sanctions war between Russia and EU, Yerevan was able to revive its dialogue with the EU and sign a Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) in November 2017, just before the 2018 April "Velvet revolution".

The development of relations with NATO and EU was one of the few diplomatic success stories of the previous Armenian government. Since late 2017 the Armenian case was often mentioned as the positive example of bridging European and Eurasian integration processes, since Armenia entered the Eurasian Economic Union in January 2015.

It seemed the "Velvet revolution" created additional favourable conditions for the development of Armenia-EU, and Armenia-NATO relations. The new government of Armenia declared its intention to accelerate the reform process in Armenia, including the fight against corruption, creation of independent judiciary, and fostering the rule of law. Prime Minister Pashinyan stated that the Armenian revolution had no geopolitical orientation and that Armenia was not going to change its foreign policy and end its alliance with Russia. However, the first actions of the new Armenian authorities – a criminal investigation against the incumbent CSTO secretary general Yuri Khachaturov; the arrest of the second President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan, who is perceived in Russia as a staunch supporter of strategic Armenia-Russia relations and enjoys friendly relations with Russian President Putin; and criminal cases opened against key Russian companies operating in Armenia – were indications that Armenia-Russia relations entered uncharted waters. The appointment to key positions of former NGO activists with tough anti-Russian and anti-Putin views only added tensions in bilateral relations. Thus, it seemed that both the alleged democratic credentials of the new government, and the clear deterioration of Armenia - Russia relations, had created a sound base for the development of Armenia-EU, and Armenia-NATO relations. Surprisingly, the reality was a little bit different.

During his first official visit to Brussels in July 2018, Prime Minister Pashinyan called on the EU to provide an additional minimum of one billion Euros in assistance to Armenia as a reward for the realisation of the brightest democratic revolution since the fall of the Berlin wall in November 1989. He was surprised to hear what the EU was ready to offer to Armenia which was much less, arguing that he could get from the pockets of even one Armenian oligarch up to 50 million Euros, and that he had no intention to receive such small amounts of money from one of the world’s biggest economic blocs. The new government of Armenia talked about the necessity to have something much bigger than CEPA, but was told that the only way to deepen relations beyond CEPA was to sign an Association Agreement, including DCFTA. However, that required leaving the Eurasian Economic Union, and Pashinyan was not ready to fully destroy relations with Russia.

Thus, within several months after the revolution, it became clear that CEPA was the only possible framework for the development of Armenia-EU relations, and Yerevan had to concentrate its efforts to implement CEPA reforms rather than demand billions of Euros in additional resources from the EU. The election of President Zelensky in April 2019 and the domestic political crisis in Georgia triggered by the "Gavrilov's night" in June 2019 fully shifted EU attention from Armenia and its revolution, back to those two countries that have an association agreements with the EU.

There was no breakthrough in Armenia-NATO relations either. Armenia’s new government understood very quickly that to have a qualitative change in bilateral relations – such as the establishment of Armenia-NATO Commission or Substantial NATO-Armenia Package, Armenia had to leave CSTO and take concrete actions to kick out the Russian military base from Gyumri. Otherwise relations will continue within the IPAP framework.

The second Karabakh war, which ended with complete Armenian capitulation and the de facto destruction of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic (80 percent territories of the NKR is currently controlled by Azerbaijan and 20 percent by Russia), will have long term implications for Armenia-EU and Armenia-NATO relations. Political and expert circles in Armenia viewed with surprise the absence of any meaningful NATO reaction, while one of its strongest members – Turkey, was directly involved in hostilities against the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and violated international humanitarian law by deploying up to 2000 Syrian mercenaries in the battlefield. The October 5 2020 visit of NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg to Turkey and his statement about Turkey being a valued NATO ally, made shockwaves in Armenia sending a clear message that all the talk of NATO being an alliance of shared values of democracy, rule of law and protection of human rights, was not worth a penny.

A similar failure by the EU to sanction Turkey for its violations of international humanitarian law significantly damaged the EU standing in Armenia. The most common question on the EU being raised today in Armenia is: if EU imposes additional sanctions on Russia for an alleged attempt of poisoning Mr Navalny but does not lift a finger to put pressure on Azerbaijan and Turkey while Armenian civilian infrastructure was bombed by cluster bombs, and mercenaries were deployed – how can we believe that all talk about human rights and rule of law are not mere geopolitical tools in the hand of the EU to reach its foreign policy goals?

As a result of Armenian capitulation and the transformation of the small part of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic into a de facto Russian protectorate, the Kremlin now enjoys more influence in Armenia than at any time since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The huge disappointment with the attitude of the EU and NATO, and the significant growth of Russian influence in Armenia will definitely impact negatively Armenia-EU and Armenia-NATO relations. Of course, neither Pashinyan, nor any new government that will replace him if he resigns, will cancel CEPA or stop signing new IPAPs with NATO. However, from now on, both the EU and NATO will be perceived in Armenia as mere sources of money and technical assistance, but not as clubs of modern, developed, and democratic states, where membership is worth fighting for.

Source: Benyamin Poghosyan is the Founder and Chairman of the Center for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan
 
Photo: The Armenian flag flies at the European Commission building in Brussels during a visit of the Armenian prime minister to the European capital.
 
The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

 

Latest

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

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

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).
Editor's choice
News
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

Popular

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

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

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)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

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

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)