Opinion: The West is trying to turn Armenia into  another ideological  platform to "contain"  Russia in Eurasia

ArmInfo. The collective West is trying to turn Armenia into yet another ideological platform to "contain"  Russia in Eurasia, according to Sergei Markedonov, PhD in history and leading research fellow at the Center for  Euro-Atlantic Security of the Institute of International Studies at  MGIMO University(under the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs).

Commenting on the fact that Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan  will not attend the EAEU summit in Astana on May 28–29 due to the  ongoing election campaign—in which his "Civil Contract" party is a  participant and a frontrunner—Markedonov noted that "diversification"  has become the key term defining the trajectory of Armenia's foreign  policy today. The political scientist observed that all top officials  in the country, starting with Pashinyan, continuously repeat this  word.

"However, it is worth noting an interesting detail! Pashinyan's  team's once-popular concept of "Crossroads of Peace" is now less  frequently used in public discourse. Armenia, of course, has not  removed it from its foreign policy agenda, but today this formula  serves more as an umbrella concept rather than the primary public  slogan. The explanation for this is not overly complex: official  Yerevan has chosen to reformat the country's integration  priorities—moving away from closer ties with Russia. While the  American vector has somewhat faded in light of recent trends  surrounding Iran, the European vector has taken on vibrant new  colors," the expert believes.

At the same time, he notes that a reasonable question arises: why  doesn't Pashinyan accelerate his geopolitical pivot? Answering his  own question, Markedonov pointed out that such acceleration is  dangerous, especially on the eve of elections.  He drew attention to  the fact that those voting for Armenia's ruling power include not  only the clients of pro-Western NGOs, but also many ordinary citizens  who hold pro-Russian sympathies and are economically tied to the EAEU  (even if they do not analytically realize this fact).

"Destroying the customary balance 'here and now' is not in the  interest of Pashinyan and Co. 'If we leave the EAEU, we will do so in  a planned manner, not abruptly. My assessment is that there is simply  no objective necessity for it,' the Prime Minister states. And  despite this, he hosts Volodymyr Zelenskyy and top figures of the  Brussels Euro-bureaucracy in Yerevan," Markedonov continued.

Furthermore, he suggested looking at what Armenia has actually gained  from the outcomes of the European Political Community and EU-Armenia  summits in Yerevan. "In May 2026, the EU presented Yerevan as a  platform for pan-European dialogue, and Armenia as part of the  European political architecture. What is the tangible output? Six  non-binding letters of intent, a new draft working agreement between  Yerevan and Frontex, and a visa report. This is not a visa-free  travel agreement for the Schengen zone, but specifically a report and  a set of declarations on continuing the visa liberalization process.  The Armenian authorities did not even receive visa-free travel based  on the Ukrainian-Georgian-Moldovan scenario as a prize ahead of the  June 7 elections," the political scientist pointed out.

According to him, as a result, no functioning integration frameworks  have emerged to incorporate Yerevan into the European—and,  implicitly, Euro-Atlantic—space with a tangible set of benefits.   "For the most part, they are trying to turn Armenia into yet another  ideologically driven platform to 'contain' Russia in Eurasia. On one  side of the scale, we have a fully functioning EAEU (there are  questions regarding the CSTO, but  the key here is goal setting:  either treating the headache or using the guillotine as a radical  remedy), and on the other, the EU-US-NATO axis as a sort of update to  'Wilsonian' Armenia at a new historical stage of development. Maximum  declarations, minimum commitments," he continued.  However,  Markedonov believes that the aforementioned does not mean Russia  should seize upon the agenda of Armenia's "Europeanizers" and begin  accelerating its own "divorce" from Yerevan. According to him, there  are plenty of others willing to do that without Russia's help. The  expert is convinced that Russia must not follow the lead of others,  but must instead shape and promote its own agenda.

"Armenia is not yet lost for the Russian Federation! And even any  electoral success for the Civil Contract party (except triumph) will  not mean the complete loss of Russian influence over the country. It  will be necessary to fight for it—first and foremost by explaining  that there is no real choice between European and Eurasian  integration," he said, while acknowledging that there is an attempt  to abandon previous, albeit imperfect, priorities in favor of elite,  ideologically driven constructs, coupled with domestic  socio-political polarization.