"Fact": The crisis of trust in relationships: how to avoid the most serious consequences

The newspaper “Fact” writes: “The issue of relations between Armenia and Russia has always been at the center of political and public discussions in Armenian society, but recently it has acquired a more acute and tense nature. This concerns not only individual issues of the bilateral agenda, but also the general orientation of Armenia’s foreign policy, the security system, the prospects for economic development and the strategic choice of the state. In this context, it is necessary to analyze calmly, without emotions, why relations with Russia are important for Armenia, why the tension that has arisen in them is dangerous, and why the need for clarification has become urgent.

First of all, one obvious truth should be recorded: for Armenia, relations with Russia are not a matter of political preference or conjuncture, but a necessity arising from objective reality. And this is conditioned by a whole complex of factors that cannot be ignored or eliminated in one day. First of all, it is its geographical location. Armenia is located in the South Caucasus, a complex and unstable region, where Russia has historically been and continues to be an influential player. Whether one likes it or not, geography does not change, and any serious foreign policy must take this reality into account. The diversity of security challenges in the region forces Armenia to build its security architecture taking into account the regional power distribution, in which Russia undoubtedly has an important place.

The second important factor is economic interdependence, the depth of which is often overlooked. Russia is Armenia’s largest trading partner, and this is not a coincidence, but a structural reality formed over decades. A significant part of Armenia’s exports is directed to the Russian market, especially in the case of agricultural products, food, and some industrial products. Armenia’s economy is integrated into the market of the Eurasian Economic Union, which creates certain dependencies and also opens up new opportunities. In addition, hundreds of thousands of Armenians work in Russia, and their remittances have been one of the important sources of support for the Armenian economy for many years. The dependence is even deeper in the energy sector. The Armenian gas supply system, the operation of the Nuclear Power Plant, and a significant part of the energy infrastructure are connected to the Russian side. In these conditions, a sharp deterioration or decline in relations with Russia can have immediate and serious consequences for the daily life of Armenia and Armenians, ranging from price increases to problems with employment and social stability.

The third factor is historical roots and cultural ties. Armenian-Russian relations have a history of centuries, and although there have been different periods in that history, both positive and contradictory, it is impossible to deny that deep human, cultural, educational, and spiritual ties have formed between the two peoples. The prevalence of the Russian language, the influence of Russian education and culture, and the dense network of family and personal ties create a special dimension that cannot be ignored.

And, finally, a very important factor is the presence of a large Armenian community living in Russia, which includes millions of people. This has not only a human and social dimension, but also a political one, as the state of the Diaspora, its security and well-being are directly related to the quality of relations between Armenia and the country in question.However, it is against the background of this objective importance that the situation in which Armenian-Russian relations have found themselves in recent years becomes even more painful and worrying. The tension has reached a level that is no longer possible to cover with general diplomatic formulations or ceremonial meetings. The fact that Russia has begun to apply practical restrictions on Armenia, particularly in the field of agricultural exports, is indicative. When political disagreements begin to be expressed in the language of economic pressure, this is a clear signal that relations have gone out of line. The use of economic instruments as a lever of pressure in relations considered to be allied indicates a deep crisis of trust. And here the question arises not only about Russia's actions, but also about the consistency of the policy pursued by the Armenian authorities. Here also appears the most contradictory aspect of the current state of Armenian-Russian relations. On the one hand, the Armenian authorities declare at a high level that relations with Russia are of key importance to them, that they are disposed to maintain and develop the constructive and positive nature of these relations, that negotiations are being held for this purpose, meetings are being organized in a positive atmosphere, and that the bilateral agenda continues to remain active, on the other hand, however, practical steps and statements often contradict this picture. Under the guise of reshaping or reformulating relations, in reality, new sources of tension are being created, new “nerves” are being added to the system of bilateral relations, which has already gone through severe trials.

The result is a situation where neither Russia trusts Armenia’s intentions, nor does Armenian society understand what direction has actually been chosen, and neither other international partners are able to correctly read Yerevan’s strategy. One of the most dangerous manifestations of this duality is the process unfolding around the issue of aspiring to the European Union. Undoubtedly, the deepening of relations between Armenia and the European Union is not only natural in itself, but also desirable. Cooperation with European institutions, cooperation in the field of democratic reforms, economic modernization, and human rights can be a serious contribution to Armenia's development. However, the problem is not the fact of the approach itself, but the manner and timing of its presentation. When the issue of starting a formal process of accession to the EU is raised at a time when Armenian-Russian relations are in an extremely tense state, when Russia is already applying economic restrictions, and when Armenia's security environment is patchy and unstable, it is inevitably perceived as a signal of a geopolitical turn, regardless of what explanations are given.

And here, this is where manipulative approaches become dangerous. Foreign policy is not built on manipulations, half-truths, and statements that change according to the situation. A state cannot simultaneously prove its loyalty to one center and its new orientation to another, without losing the trust of both.

Experience, and not only Armenian, shows that the policy of sitting on two chairs rarely brings success, especially in the case of small and vulnerable states. In international relations, reliability and predictability are no less valuable than flexibility. When a state’s foreign policy becomes illegible, when partners cannot understand what its strategic choice is, they begin to work according to the logic of worst-case scenarios. Russia, seeing Yerevan’s European aspirations, will become more suspicious, and the European Union, seeing Armenia’s continued dependence on the Russian security and economic systems, will be wary of assuming serious commitments. As a result, Armenia is viewed with suspicion by all parties.This is where the need for clarification arises. It is not about making a final choice for or against someone, but about clearly and honestly defining the nature, scope, and boundaries of relations.

In the long term, Armenia should clarify its relations with both Russia and the European Union, since relations with both major centers are important, and misinterpretations are the most reliable way to create new sources of tension. An important part of clarification is sincere dialogue with partners. In relations with Russia, it is necessary to voice the problems that have accumulated, from issues of fulfilling security obligations to economic restrictions, and seek solutions not through public statements, but through professional diplomacy. At the same time, illusions should be avoided in relations with the European Union. Europe cannot and does not intend to replace Russia in our region, and this should be understood soberly. The European Union can only be a partner in development, reforms and economic support, while Russia has a direct presence in our region in terms of energy, economy and military. Failure to understand this distinction can lead to serious strategic mistakes.

The other side of the problem is the formation of internal consensus. In such fundamental foreign policy issues, the government cannot act alone without consulting the opposition, the expert community and broad strata of society. Clarification of the foreign policy course should be the result of national consensus, not a conjunctural decision of one political force, and even more so, one person. Only in this case will it be stable and will continue regardless of changes in power.

It is also important to understand that clarification does not mean a hard choice in favor of one and against the other. In the modern world, many countries successfully combine cooperation with different centers, but they succeed not through manipulation, but thanks to transparency and predictability. Armenia can also have deeper relations with Europe and maintain strategic ties with Russia, but for this it is necessary that both directions are clearly formulated, consistent with each other and understandable to all partners.

One cannot declare one day about allied loyalty, and the next day take steps that are perceived as a rupture of the alliance. One cannot talk about European integration without explaining how it is combined with existing obligations and dependencies.