If there were real trust between the RA and Russian authorities and the public
A few days ago, Russian State Duma Speaker Sergey Naryshkin arrived in Armenia, whose headed delegation discussed the EaEU prospects at the National Assembly. Armenia’s decision to join the EaEU leaves an impression that even the Russians are considering it as an artificially made move. Here is the Russian top officials are coming to Yerevan, and take as a duty to explain to Yerevan of what would have happened to Armenia, if we had chosen the path proposed by the Europeans, and “at hand”, criticize the West. Naryshkin believes that Ukraine and Moldova that have signed an EU Association Agreement are mostly affected by the political and economic “tough blackmail” used by Brussels and Washington, the anti-Russian sanctions. Whereas the EaEU members, according to Naryshkin, are protected. “The challenges caused by illegal sanctions are not only successfully overcome, but also contribute to the Eurasian integration,” noted the State Duma Speaker, adding, “The events of the past year have demonstrated just how strongly the monopoly of an overseas currency can damage international cooperation.” He highlights the importance of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s initiative on the transition to a single currency.
According to Russian officials, the EaEU permits to discuss these issues on an equal footing and find joint solutions, otherwise, these opportunities would be fewer, and the EaEU enrollment is based on the principle of equality and sovereignty. Naryshkin mentioned that unlike the EaEU, other integration unions demand that the interest of the Union prevails over the national interests of other states, and stressed that Armenia’s decision to join the EaEU was made by the citizens of Armenia. Majority of Armenia’s society, certainly, continues considering that Armenia has no future without Russia, but the decision on accession to the EaEU cannot be said that it was a decision made by the citizens of Armenia. In addition, why Russian officials are worried if they truly believe that this “irreversible” decision is made by the RA citizens, and they consider it appropriate to speak of the risks of “other geopolitical choice” and “acceding to other unions”. Perhaps, however, they have doubts? And which is our benefit of the EaEU? The domestic trade as of January between the EaEU countries that are already functioning for three months – Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Armenia, compared with last year, has dropped by about 36 percent. This is said according to the official release of the Eurasian Economic Commission while the Russian economists urge to “hurry up slowly” and to avoid making early judgments.
Whether Armenia would join the EaEU or not, surely, the change in Russian ruble exchange rate would have a negative impact on cooperation between Russia and Armenia. This is clear. But the Russians have found a convenient “excuse”, “the created situation is associated with the phenomena available in the world economy, in particular, with dropping of oil prices.” However, the issue of the EaEU establishment and the opportunities of our country’s economic development is evident generally not only in the case of Armenia, but also Belarus and Kazakhstan. Both in our society and the Russian government elite, all clearly realizes that Armenia’s accession to the EaEU was an imposed and artificial move, no authority in our country could avoid the accession to this Union. Now, the “stake” appears only to be only on the time, when non-viability of this structure will be stated. Let’s turn to the next question. And maybe, the benefit of our country’s membership to the EaEU is really within the security. In this case, however, not everything is smooth.
Read also
Naryshkin has publicly replied to the statement made a few days ago by Serzh Sargsyan regarding the selling of weapons to Azerbaijan by Russia. “The federative commitments over Armenia obligate Russia to defend Armenia in case of external aggression, and you should have no doubts that Russia if needed, will fulfill these commitments. As for the trade of weapons, then surely, there is a commercial component. Any country that produces modern armament, naturally, is intended and develops a plan to sell this armor and receive profit for it. These funds are used for constructive and creative purposes, including the development and partnership of relations with other countries to cooperate.” In other words, Naryshkin was the first Russian official who responded to Serzh Sargsyan’s concern regarding the selling of arms to Azerbaijan. As expected, the Kremlin stance remains unchanged. “Only business” with Azerbaijan, nothing else, and it is for “constructive and creative purposes.”
But Russia’s “strategic partner”, Armenia, obviously is often exposed to aggression by Azerbaijan, Russian offensive weapon firings are heard in the direction of Armenian borders, interestingly, why this fact is consistently neglected by the Russian authorities. Those who are voicing the Armenian-Russian “age-old friendship” and inadmissibility of anti-Russian sentiments should be more interested in Armenia-Russia relations be practically on an equal footing, strategic quality, and level. In the presence of such relationships, Russian officials will not have to emphasize in the capital of Armenia that RA citizens have made the decision to join the EaEU and voice about the dangers and risks of acceding to other structures. It would not be necessary should there be a true confidence between the two countries’ governments and the societies.
Emma GABRIELYAN
