Diplomat: Yerevan and Moscow show no intention of seeking mutually  acceptable strategic solutions

ArmInfo. Yerevan and Moscow are not seeking mutually acceptable strategic solutions, as evidenced by the results of Armenian Parliament Speaker Alen  Simonyan's recent visit to Moscow. This is the conclusion reached by  Armen Martirosyan, a former member of the Supreme Soviet of Armenia  (1990-95), a former member of the National Assembly (1995- 99), and  Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Armenia, in his  article "Dialogue Without Trust" for ArmInfo.

Martirosyan noted that the official visit of the Armenian National Assembly delegation to Moscow (February 4-7, 2026) was initially perceived not as a routine gesture of "parliamentary diplomacy," but as a political mission amid  a protracted crisis of trust between Yerevan and Moscow and in the  lead-up to the next parliamentary elections in both countries.

In this regard, he recalled that in recent years, public  communication between the two capitals has been rife with mutual  accusations. "Moscow is pointing out to Yerevan the unacceptability  of a cautious drift toward the West, given its commitments within the  framework of Eurasian integration. Yerevan is accusing Moscow of a  lack of security guarantees and a failure to fulfill what Armenia  continues to call 'alliance obligations.' In this atmosphere, the  visit has become a political test of de-escalation: will the parties  be able to transform the exchange of accusations into a constructive  dialogue and establish at least a minimal agenda of mutual  commitments, or will they prefer a rhetorical standoff, where  demonstrations of (principledness) and mutual accusations are more  important than real agreements," the diplomat recalled.

He referred to the monochromatic delegation of the Speaker of the  Armenian Parliament, sent to the Russian capital. "The composition of  the Armenian delegation stood out: three deputies from the ruling  party and a substantial escort. For parliamentary diplomacy, such  (non)representation is more of an anomaly than the norm: a visit to  an ally usually requires representation from all factions as evidence  of a national, rather than purely partisan, mandate. Such  'sterility,' by excluding pluralism of opinions within the Armenian  delegation, only exposed the depth of Armenia's social polarization  on the eve of the elections," Martirosyan stated. He also noted that  Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko was maintaining a  "soft" agenda during the meeting with her Armenian counterpart.   Martirosyan emphasized that the discussion with Federation Council  Speaker Valentina Matviyenko focused on socioeconomic cooperation and  humanitarian ties. This allowed them to  avoid conflict-prone topics  and discuss certain issues without a public showdown. "In the current  logic of Armenian-Russian relations, such tactics are truly  justified: when the strategic contours of relations are poisoned by  mutual grievances, the parties are forced to rely on a pragmatic  agenda-trade, migration, humanitarian and cultural ties-to maintain  working channels of communication and prevent a final rupture," the  Armenian diplomat believes.

He also recalled that Matviyenko described the conversation as open  and sometimes heated, but overall constructive and productive-with an  emphasis on "pending work issues" that legislators can "push" toward  resolution at the executive level. "The notion of 'urgency' and  'pending' issues indicates serious contradictions that the  parliamentary track alone cannot resolve. And assessing the meeting  as productive does  not  signal normalization, but rather the  manageability of the recession," Martirosyan asserted.

Meanwhile, he noted that political differences also surfaced in joint  press communications,  highlighting a new source of tension and  suspicion. "The topic of persecution of the Armenian Apostolic Church  and prominent clergy was hardly raised by Russian journalists for  religious reasons: Moscow is traditionally sensitive to symbolic  institutions in post-Soviet societies and tends to interpret such  topics as a marker of internal instability or ideological drift. The  Speaker's comical denial of the very question not only failed to  relieve tension, but also revealed conflicting interpretations:  instead of 'there is a problem - let's discuss solutions,' he  effectively declared, 'there is no problem - you invented it.' In  interstate dialogue, if one side expresses concern and the other  cynically dismisses it, only perpetuates the feeling of alienation,"  the politician noted.

Touching on Simonyan's talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey  Lavrov, Martirosyan expressed his conviction that the meeting had a  different purpose: to publicly outline "red lines" and address mutual  grievances. In this vein, the diplomat recalled that during the open  part of the meeting, Lavrov presented his guest with a "checklist" to  assess the state of allied relations: security and the CSTO.

"Moscow rejected the rhetoric about 'mythical attacks from the north'  and the 'existential threat' posed by the CSTO, thereby challenging  the Armenian leadership's new narrative, according to which threats  to the country emanate from the organization itself," the politician  continued. He added that the Russian minister also outlined the  incompatibility of institutional rapprochement with the EU and its  commitments within the EAEU, urging Yerevan not to disguise its  political choice with the formula "both here and there." Martirosyan  also noted that Moscow is irritated by the Armenian authorities'  efforts to bring up the topic of Russia's notorious interference in  Armenian elections in Western forums with the goal of expanding the  European presence in Armenia. According to him, from the Russian  perspective, this is perceived as legitimization of Yerevan's further  political drift away from Russia. Overall, the Russian side has  outlined those formulations and actions by Yerevan that it considers  as not  incompatible with their allied status and is likely to  interpret them as signs of a de facto political break.

"Against this backdrop, the responses from the Armenian delegation  seem like a series of outdated slogans:  'We are interested in  relations,' 'We are not acting against Russia,' 'There should be no  logic of 'with us or against us,' 'A solution beneficial to both  sides is possible.' In response to Lavrov's reproaches regarding  threats allegedly emanating from the CSTO, the Armenian side cited  its existing 'unanswered questions' and, by leveling a  counter-reproach regarding 'rhetoric from Moscow,' expanded its list  of grievances instead of proposing ideas for de-escalation. And it  gets worse: in discussions of 'hybrid attacks,' the speaker of the  Armenian parliament attempted to disparage the Russian government's  responsibility, declaring that 'there are many towers in the  Kremlin.' Such a politically charged response hinted at the  ineffectiveness of Russian strategic communications," Martirosyan  believes. 

He also pointed out that the "auto-correction" of the Speaker's  rhetoric on the eve of the visit became a hot topic in Armenian and  Russian media. This type of audience-focused adaptation only  emphasized the situational nature of his responses and comments,  ultimately undermining the predictability of interaction and the  trusting nature of the relationship. "The public portion of the talks  revealed the Armenian side's predisposition to maintain the 'freeze'  on military and political cooperation. Official Yerevan's  'reassurance' rhetoric has become the main instrument of diplomatic  engagement with Moscow. There are no signs that this is easing  anxiety in the Kremlin. Neither side is seeking mutually acceptable  strategic solutions. Acting pragmatically, Russia is not escalating  the situation, while simultaneously demonstrating an interest in  cooperation and concern about current trends. Diplomacy is aimed  primarily not at a breakthrough, but at reducing the risk of  escalation, minimizing damage, and keeping the situation manageable.  The price of such a regime: strategic differences are perpetuated,  mistrust is institutionalized, and agreements become ad hoc. In the  current circumstances, it is critical to navigate the inevitable  emotional peaks and resolve disagreements without destroying the  institutional framework of bilateral and multilateral cooperation,"  Martirosyan concluded.