Armenia lured by Brussels' bait Yerevan’s pivot from Moscow

April 5, 2024, will obviously become the next pillar of the complex processes taking place in the South Caucasus. A meeting of the European Union, the United States and Armenian officials is scheduled for this date in Brussels, Armenian Security Council Secretary Armen Grigoryan said a week ago.

"A joint meeting between European Council President von der Leyen, Prime Minister Pashinyan and Secretary of State Blinken is scheduled for April 5 this year in Brussels, with plans to discuss ways of trilateral cooperation that will contribute to Armenia's development. The event is also aimed at increasing Armenia's sustainability," Grigoryan said.

The logic of the meeting continues the algorithm set in October last year in Granada. After all, it was then, after the triumphant completion of anti-terrorist measures by Azerbaijan in Karabakh and the complete restoration of its sovereignty, that special relations between Armenia and the Old World were formalized for the first time in the context of the negotiation process with Azerbaijan. It was there that Europe practically officially signed that it was not going to be impartial in the Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement and was on the side of Yerevan.

Let me remind you that during the summit of the European Political Community (the event is the brainchild of the French president) in this Spanish city, without the participation of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, a joint statement was adopted by the head of the European Council Michel, French President Macron, German Chancellor Scholz and Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan on Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement.

The statement spoke of the need to provide the opportunity for the Armenians of Karabakh who resettled in Armenia to “exercise their right to return to their homes and places of residence without any conditions, with international monitoring and with due respect for their history, culture and human rights,” and also contained the call to the parties to the conflict to release “all detainees”, in other words, contained attempts at gross interference in the internal affairs of Azerbaijan.

Moreover, a separate document was adopted by Pashinyan and the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, which contained a condemnation of “Azerbaijan’s military operation against the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh” and outlined formats for assistance to Armenia.

By the way, it was in Granada that von der Leyen informed about the preparation of a joint EU-US event in support of Armenia.

According to insights from the Armenian government leaked to the press, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg will also participate in the upcoming meeting in Brussels, and the parties will most likely sign a document on the West providing security guarantees to Armenia, i.e. a military pact.

Agenda items include: offering Armenia EU candidate status, allocating European Peace Fund (EPF) funds to Yerevan, increasing bilateral military assistance from EU member states, joint training and military exercises to strengthen Armenia's defence capabilities, security sector reform, strengthening Armenia's control

over its borders, an offer to become a member of the European Energy Community, assistance in accelerating the green transformation and diversification of energy imports and sources of energy, measures to strengthen food security, and the start of a dialogue on visa liberalization.

As you can see, the list of baits is solid. This is understandable because the West needs to gain a foothold in Armenia not only and not so much to spite Azerbaijan, but in order to facilitate the ousting of Russia from the region. Moreover, the rush to provide certain security guarantees to Armenia also serves the purpose of protecting its potential satellite from possible unfriendly actions by Russia.

However, unwilling to admit it for a number of reasons, the West and Armenia use the factor of Azerbaijan as a classic bugaboo. Pashinyan's behaviour fits perfectly into this picture. It is worth remembering that recently he has been actively talking about the need to return four non-exclave villages of Azerbaijan.

Moreover, he made the first mention of this necessity, so to speak, right on the powder keg - at a meeting with the Armenians living illegally in these villages. Not surprisingly, this caused a stir not only in the Armenian media, but also led to the discontent of the paramilitary organization "Combat Brotherhood", mass arrests of its members and a subsequent spontaneous riot demanding the release of the detainees.

Pashinyan is using this escalation to extract maximum preferential treatment from the West. Most importantly, it is worth remembering how he presented the idea of returning Azerbaijani villages - if we don't return them, Azerbaijan will start a war against Armenia in a week (the week, by the way, has long passed, but the war never happened). That is, on the one hand, he admits that the villages do not belong to Armenia, and on the other hand he accuses Azerbaijan of plans to unleash a new war. At the same time, he nods at the rebels and as if says to the West: "You see, Moscow is not slumbering". This creates a favourable background for future meeting in Brussels.

At the same time, this creates an unhealthy atmosphere around the relations between Azerbaijan and the West. On the other hand, Baku's independent course towards Russia and unwillingness to join sanctions against this country cause additional irritation to the West. This, in particular, led to the fact that the West began to misuse Ukraine to conduct a smear campaign against Azerbaijan in order to spoil relations between Baku and Moscow. We are talking, and we have already written about it, about the disinformation "leaked" by the Ukrainian authorities about alleged arms deliveries from Azerbaijan to Ukraine. The recent visit of presidential aide Hikmet Hajiyev to China has probably also added to the discontent of Washington and Brussels.

The impression is that the West hopes to frighten Azerbaijan. In these circumstances, the reaction of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, expressed by its official representative Aykhan Hajizada, is indicative: “Such actions by the EU and the US clearly have a one-sided and biased character, and are based on double standard approach. The mentioned conference is not conducted in a fully transparent manner, lacks regional inclusivity, and runs contrary to promoted and much-needed confidence-building, and integrity in the region. It creates new dividing lines and so-called spheres of influence in the region, instead of encouraging the Armenian side to negotiate in good faith.”

Indeed, instead of encouraging in Armenian society the idea of changing the Constitution and getting rid of other legislative acts enshrining territorial claims to Azerbaijan, the West demonstratively extends its umbrella to Armenia without waiting for these changes. This means that it supports Armenia's territorial claims to Azerbaijan. This very point was emphasized in Hajizada's statement: “Given the revanchist mood in Armenia, such an open pro-Armenian public manifestation by Washington and Brussels might create a dangerous illusion in Armenia that EU and US are going to support Armenia in its possible renewed provocations against Azerbaijan. In such case, the EU and US will share responsibility for any possible destabilizing action by Armenia.”

So, Baku has voiced its position. Now we will wait for the actions of Moscow, which, by the way, has already voiced its position the day before. "Armenia risks falling into a trap, succumbing to the illusion that rapprochement with the European Union brings prosperity and welfare, as such empty promises of the collective West, as a rule, turn into bondage," Russian Foreign Ministry's spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a briefing.

However, it is still unclear, how Iran feels about all this. Either he is preparing something, or, on the contrary, he is rejoicing at squeezing Russia out of the region, hoping that the presence of Europeans and Americans is situational, and waiting for hour X, so that when the latter leave, he can individually take possession of Armenia. It is also possible that the West promises Tehran mountains of gold in the hypothetical “Crossroads of the World” project.

By the way, in a recent interview with the Greek publication Kathimerini, Pashinyan spoke a lot about the need to use the territory of Nakhchivan and Türkiye to involve Armenia in global transportation flows, referring not to the Middle Corridor from China to Europe, but to the so-called "Crossroads of the World" from Iran to the Black and Mediterranean Seas. And speaking of green energy transit, Pashinyan mentioned the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman as a source.

Macron said something similar, or more precisely, about the desire to integrate the European, Balkan and Caucasian energy systems into a single grid. And the item from the Brussels meeting agenda quoted above - "assistance to Armenia in accelerating green transformation and diversification of energy imports and sources" - also speaks of this. It seems that the Europeans are trying to integrate the countries of the South Caucasus on their own terms, focusing on Armenia.

At the same time, Yerevan forgets that Europe knows how to count money and the "Crossroads of the World" project can serve as only one of the alternatives for it. And certainly, Brussels will not cut business ties with Azerbaijan if Baku refuses to participate in this initiative.

Moreover, Azerbaijan also intends to become one of the main suppliers of green energy to the European market. However, any participation of Azerbaijan in joint projects with Armenia is possible only after Yerevan returns the held territories, fulfils its obligations under the Trilateral Statement and cleanses its legislation from the poisonous vapours of tseghakronism.

The West, which does not seek to help Armenia in this, is itself subscribing to this ideology and becoming an open propagandist of Nazism.