What Are the Potential Benefits for Armenia from the EU Summit?

585
0

The European leaders’ summit in Yerevan from May 4 to 5 drew pan-European attention. Delegations from across Europe, along with the prime minister of Canada and officials from Georgia and Turkey, convened in Armenia. The joint participation of the EU and Canada underscored their growing divergence from the United States. The presence of a NATO leader, contrasted with the absence of high-level US representation, further highlighted these differences.

The event received a wide range of reactions, from public discussions on social media to harsh statements by former Russian President Dimitry Medvedev, as well as Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s aggressive speech delivered online during the summit. All of this became the subject of further debate and criticism.

President of the European Council António Costa, together with President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen represented the EU at the summit. It was a key opportunity to further strengthen bilateral relations, in particular on connectivity, energy, transport and digital cooperation. The leaders discussed current global challenges, such as the latest developments in the wider region, including Ukraine and the impact of the ongoing crisis in the Middle East. They issued a joint declaration at the end of the summit and exchanged a number of signed documents essential to deepening the EU-Armenia partnership, including on the EU-Armenia connectivity partnership, six non-binding letters of intent, a new text on the working arrangement between Armenia and Frontex and the visa report.

Costa, following the meeting of the European Political Community, noted that Armenia’s hosting of the summit is a powerful illustration of its courageous geopolitical path, which it is pursuing together with the European Union. He emphasized that Armenia is a close EU partner and that the EU looks forward to deepening this relationship. This first-ever summit, he continued, marks an important milestone and represents an investment in peace, security, connectivity, and prosperity in the South Caucasus.

However, no word or statement on Armenian full integration was mentioned in any form.

While Armenia is considered part of the broader European family, it has not expressed any intention to join the European Union or NATO, nor to withdraw from the Eurasian Economic Union or the Collective Security Treaty Organization. The absence of such declarations suggests that EU membership is not currently a concrete objective of Armenia’s foreign policy. If such a goal existed, this would have been a historic moment and platform to clearly articulate it and secure broader European support.

Get the Mirror in your inbox:

Without such a commitment, what tangible benefits can Armenia realistically expect from this summit beyond media visibility? Will Armenia leverage this opportunity to advance its national interests, or will it be used by the government for domestic political purposes, particularly in a pre-election context?

Personally, I maintain the view that over the past eight years, Armenia’s authorities have not taken any substantive steps against Russia’s vital interests, even when those interests have conflicted with Armenia’s own. While rhetoric has often been tense and statements varied, one fact remains clear: at the highest level — between Pashinyan and Russian President Vladmir Putin — direct and active communication has consistently continued without interruption.

It can be reiterated that Armenia has not acted against Russia’s core interests: it has not withdrawn from the EAEU or CSTO; Russia formally remains Armenia’s strategic ally; the Russian military base continues to operate in Armenia; and Russia remains Armenia’s primary trading partner and a key export destination.

Therefore, if Armenia does not declare an intention to pursue EU membership even at this critical moment, it suggests that this issue is not part of its genuine foreign policy agenda. Moscow, in this regard, has little reason for concern, and discussions about EU membership are likely to remain rhetorical rather than translate into concrete action. At the same time, such narratives may serve to sustain favorable public sentiment toward Prime Minister Pashinyan and his administration.

Get the Mirror-Spectator Weekly in your inbox: