Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's decision not to attend the informal summit of Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) leaders, held recently near St. Petersburg, has sparked discussions about underlying political tensions between Armenia and its regional partners. Citing health reasons, Pashinyan announced via his Telegram channel on December 25, 2023, his inability to attend the summit due to testing positive for COVID-19.
Despite returning negative test results by the date of the summit, he expressed concerns about participating physically, leading to speculation among political analysts about his motives. Some experts, including political scientist Lilith Dallakyan, have suggested Pashinyan's absence may be connected to his reluctance to engage with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev at negotiations hosted by Russia. "It is possible Pashinyan received signals hinting at Putin's intention to organize talks with Aliyev there," Dallakyan noted, highlighting the sensitive nature of the negotiations over delimitation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border.
This informal summit is significant as Armenia is set to chair the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) bodies starting January 2024. The summit’s agenda likely included deliberations on economic cooperation among member states, with President Dmitry Peskov of Russia affirming Armenia's importance to the EEU, stating, "Armenia remains very much sought after as a participant not only within the EEU but also the CIS." He also noted remote participation could be acceptable for Pashinyan.
Pashinyan's absence marks the first time he failed to participate since assuming office, as he had attended five previous informal CIS leader summits. The Prime Minister's diminished attendance at such forums has been attributed to Armenia’s discontent with Russia's perceived failure to provide adequate support during conflicts with Azerbaijan, most recently highlighted during the 44-day war over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Previously, Pashinyan had met Aliyev two months prior, during the 16th BRICS summit held on October 24, where they discussed bilateral issues, including the contentious peace treaty and border matters. The conversation at the Kazan summit reportedly took place amid efforts to finalize peace agreements, albeit with the backdrop of Azerbaijan's insistence on not being pressured to concede to Armenia.
Opinions diverge among Armenian political analysts concerning Pashinyan's decision to skip the summit. Some, like Ayq Konderjan, argue against conspiracy theories, asserting, "There’s no need to look for hidden motives. When the Prime Minister makes decisions, he communicates these clearly. There's nothing to hide or avoid."
Though Pashinyan maintained the reason for his absence was strictly health-related, the timing has intensified scrutiny over Armenia's relations with both Russia and Azerbaijan.
Interestingly, the dynamics of Armenia's international relations are changing, with increased engagement with Western powers suggested as strategic alternatives. For example, Pashinyan's previous declarations have indicated the possibility of Armenia reconsidering its status within the CSTO, voicing strong dissatisfaction over collective security measures.
During the recent EEU summit held under less than amicable conditions, some jabs were exchanged between Pashinyan and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko over Pashinyan's online participation. When discussing the next EEU summit to take place in Minsk, Lukashenko proposed organizing transport for the Armenian delegation, to which Pashinyan reiterated his commitment to participating remotely. He responded wittily, "I understand if there are issues with televisions for video conferences. I’m quite accommodating of your technical issues." This light-hearted banter underscored the tensions still palpable beneath facades of cooperation.
Overall, the outcome of this informal summit raises significant questions about the efficacy and the direction of Armenia’s foreign policy under Pashinyan. Analysts maintain this period of geopolitical tension, particularly with Azerbaijan and Russia, signals not just policy negotiations but potential realignments within the region.
Looking forward, the importance of Pashinyan’s political maneuvering remains prominent. His administration faces internal pressure as well, with public protests demanding stances on foreign assistance and security commitments. Pashinyan’s stance on international alliances—a balancing act between Russia and the West—will continue to shape Armenia's future regional interactions. This is especially pertinent as tensions flare due to perceived failures to uphold peace and economic stability.
With the EEU summit outcomes pending and the political climate shifting dramatically, Armenia’s path may hinge on strategic decisions made by its leadership. Pashinyan's cautious approach and reluctance to engage may just be preliminary steps to broader diplomatic recalibrations.
