AZE.US
Former Armenian President Robert Kocharyan has warned that a possible rupture with Russia could become an economic catastrophe for Armenia, saying Yerevan is risking the market that keeps much of the country’s economy alive.
In an interview with RBC, Kocharyan, who is running for prime minister from the Armenia Alliance bloc, said the choice between the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union is not an abstract foreign-policy debate, but an existential issue for Armenia’s economy.
He described the choice as one between an “unrealizable dream” and an existing framework that, in his view, helps Armenia’s economy breathe and develop.
“There is a concrete situation that simply allows Armenia’s economy to breathe and develop,” Kocharyan said. “We are putting some kind of chimera forward as a priority, while rejecting what has a real positive impact on our life.”
Kocharyan said the South Caucasus has become an arena of competition among major geopolitical centers. In his view, Europe and the United States are doing everything possible to push Russia out of the region, while Armenia has thrown itself into that confrontation.
He said Yerevan would have been wiser not to enter this struggle, but to wait out the “geopolitical storm” and then choose a reliable harbor that can keep the Armenian people safe and economically secure.
Kocharyan was especially blunt about the possible consequences of breaking with Moscow.
He said almost all Armenian agricultural exports go to Russia, while the European market remains protected by barriers that are difficult for Armenian producers to overcome.
According to Kocharyan, 98% of Armenia’s agricultural products and more than 90% of its alcohol exports, including wine and brandy, are sold to Russia.
“Farmers will strangle their leaders,” he said, referring to what could happen if Armenian producers lose access to the Russian market.
Kocharyan argued that the imbalance between the two economies makes the situation especially dangerous for Yerevan. A trade rupture with Armenia would barely be noticed in Russia, he said, while Armenia would suffer heavily.
“To play with what feeds your economy and gives you the opportunity to develop is not just short-sighted. It is stupid,” he said.
The former president also commented on Moscow’s reaction to the policy of Armenia’s current government.
He said Russia had tried for a long time and with considerable patience to explain to Armenian authorities that their movement toward the EU could create problems. In Kocharyan’s view, Moscow’s patience eventually ran out.
He pointed to the May summit of the European Political Community in Armenia, attended by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, as one of the triggers. Kocharyan said aggressive statements against Russia during the summit helped push Moscow toward action.
He argued that Armenia’s current leadership is provoking Russia and then trying to shift responsibility for the consequences onto Moscow.
At the same time, Kocharyan said his political bloc is not against relations with the EU or visa-free travel. He said Armenia should develop ties with Europe, but earn money on markets that are already open.
Kocharyan called the current policy of Yerevan a “geopolitical split”: rhetoric, he said, is directed toward Europe, while the economy and business remain oriented toward Russia.
For a country that is not trained for such a split, he said, the result may be “torn ligaments.”
He warned that Armenia’s foreign economic policy has become disconnected from the country’s real economic interests.
Kocharyan also spoke about Nagorno-Karabakh, saying it was lost after Armenia signed a statement recognizing it as part of Azerbaijan without consulting Russia.
According to him, the earlier arrangement depended on both Armenia and Azerbaijan agreeing to a Russian peacekeeping presence. Once Armenia left that framework politically, he said, the structure collapsed.
Kocharyan argued that Yerevan then successfully shifted blame for the consequences onto Russia. In his view, Karabakh could have been saved if the previous arrangement had been preserved.
He also sharply criticized Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s efforts to move closer to Turkey.
Kocharyan said Pashinyan is trying to rewrite history in order to please Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He pointed to the Armenian government’s rhetoric about closing painful pages of history and moving beyond the genocide issue and the question of Mount Ararat.
In Kocharyan’s view, the real issue is not EU membership, which he called unrealistic, but a shift in regional influence from Russia to Turkey.
“He understands perfectly well that the European Union is a fairy tale,” Kocharyan said. “This is not about joining the EU. This is about replacing Russia’s regional influence with Turkey’s regional influence.”
Kocharyan also criticized the TRIPP project, describing it as a large advertising campaign built around a 42-kilometer section of road that, in his words, has been inflated into a project of global scale.
He said the United States has no direct economic benefit from the project, but gains a presence near the Iran-Armenia border. That, he said, is Washington’s clear interest: monitoring Iran.
Kocharyan said Armenia should expand the project and involve other players that Iran views more favorably, such as Russia or China, to reduce the risks of Tehran’s reaction.
His remarks came as Armenian Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan said Yerevan is not currently considering leaving the Eurasian Economic Union.
Grigoryan said Armenia would think about a choice between the EAEU and the EU only when the question becomes unavoidable. For now, he said, there is no issue of breaking ties with the Eurasian bloc and no need to calculate possible economic damage.
He also described current problems with Armenian goods entering Russia as technical and expressed hope they would be resolved soon.
The debate shows how Armenia’s election campaign is becoming not only a contest for power, but also a dispute over the country’s future economic and geopolitical model.
For Kocharyan, the main danger is the loss of the Russian market and an attempt to replace it with a European direction without a clear economic plan. For Pashinyan’s team, the central argument is diversification, reduced dependence and a new regional order after Karabakh.
The argument now goes far beyond party politics. It is about where Armenia sees itself after the war, the loss of Karabakh, disappointment in old alliances and the reshaping of the South Caucasus.
AZE.US