In a recent broadcast of the Discussion program on the Noyan Tapan media platform, former diplomat and Chairman of the Board of the “National Agenda” Party, Ara Hakobyan, delivered a sharp critique of Armenia’s current foreign policy and economic maneuvering. Hosted by Noyan Tapan, the conversation centered on the government’s handling of gas pricing negotiations with Moscow, security arrangements regarding Russian military assets, and the broader, fraught relationship between Armenia, its neighbors, and the West.
The discussion opened with an evaluation of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s recent statements regarding energy diversification amidst rising tensions between Yerevan and Moscow. Hakobyan noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent hints were clear: if Armenia moves away from the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) toward the European Union without taking a definitive stance, it risks losing its preferential economic benefits, particularly subsidized gas prices.
While Pashinyan has publicly maintained that Armenia will not abandon its diversification strategy and will seek alternative natural gas supplies, Hakobyan questioned the realism of these alternatives. Armenia currently participates in a gas-for-electricity swap program with Iran, but government references to potential transit arrangements through neighboring countries implicitly point to Central Asian gas routed via Azerbaijan.
Addressing the narrative surrounding Russian gas costs, the dialogue dismantled the common political belief that Armenia receives genuinely inexpensive energy. Hakobyan corroborated that while Gazprom supplies gas to the Armenian border at approximately $180 per thousand cubic meters, its subsidiary, Gazprom Armenia, distributes it to domestic end-consumers at more than double that cost—exceeding $360.
Although this price remains lower than current Western European rates, Hakobyan stressed that relative to Armenia’s purchasing power and economic development, the end-user tariff is burdenously high. Gazprom Armenia remains a highly profitable enterprise for Russian interests. Consequently, political claims inside Armenia that the nation relies on “cheap gas” represent what Hakobyan described as “an absolute falsehood and manipulation”, pointing out that neighboring Georgia enjoys significantly lower domestic gas tariffs.
Reciprocal Tariffs and the Security Dilemma
In response to potential economic leverage from Russia, Armenian officials—including National Security Council leadership—have signaled that Yerevan could introduce usage fees for Russian military infrastructure, specifically targeting the 102nd Military Base in Gyumri and Russian border guards.
Hakobyan observed that while the administration claims not to have formally raised this demand, the intention to phase out or minimize Russian military presence is evident. However, he emphasized that this push stems less from an independent Armenian initiative and more from external demands exerted by Western and Turkish-Azerbaijani actors seeking to eliminate or diminish Moscow’s regional footprint.
Commenting on internal domestic reactions to the potential withdrawal of Russian forces, Hakobyan singled out recent public remarks from opposition political figures, such as Samvel Karapetyan, who warned that the departure of Russian troops would leave Armenia “ownerless,” inevitably opening the door to a Turkish military presence.
Hakobyan condemned this line of thinking as a psychological trap. “We are once again conducting discussions within the domain of ‘master and servant,'” Hakobyan asserted. “The notion that we must absolutely have a master is taken as an axiomatic premise… We have failed to learn the lessons of centuries. We must break free from this unhealthy complex if we want to preserve even this small portion of Armenian statehood on the Armenian Highlands”.
He stressed that true independence requires active state-building rather than passively attempting to satisfy conflicting demands from Baku, Ankara, Moscow, and Western capitals.
EU Integration and the Disconnect with the Diaspora
Turning to relations with the West, the host and guest analyzed recent statements from European Commission representatives regarding Armenia’s visa free travel goal by 2029. Contrary to the government’s promotional timeline, EU spokespersons clarified that visa liberalization cannot be pegged to a fixed year and depends entirely on ongoing conditions. Hakobyan tied this ambiguity directly to the administration’s passive and inconsistent posture, which invites simultaneous pressure from both Moscow and Brussels.
This lack of strategic cohesion is equally evident in the government’s approach to the Armenian Diaspora. Hakobyan sharply criticized the Prime Minister’s assertion that “a strong Diaspora does not mean a strong Armenia”. He characterized the administration’s simplified logic—that a growing diaspora only results from emigration that weakens the homeland—as primitive and counterproductive.
Pointing to historical precedents like the Indian-Armenian community or modern global advocacy structures utilized by Ireland and Israel, Hakobyan noted that effective states harness their global networks as strategic assets. The current administration, he argued, lacks a coherent framework to leverage diaspora potential. Instead, it seeks to shrink the scope of national ambitions exclusively to the present borders of the Republic of Armenia while abandoning long-standing national claims regarding territorial integrity, rights of return, and international legal succession.
Historical Parallels and Geopolitical Illusions
Addressing proposals from some analysts that Armenia could align with Israel due to recent tensions between Ankara and Tel Aviv, Hakobyan urged realistic historical grounding rather than short-sighted opportunism.
He reminded viewers of Israel’s long-standing strategic alignment with Baku and Ankara, citing Israeli military exports, operational support during recent conflicts, and public praise for Azerbaijani leadership. While situational cooperation with various powers is possible, assuming that third-party geopolitical friction will automatically translate into defense guarantees for Armenia is a dangerous fallacy.
Drawing a historical parallel to the centuries of Russo-Turkish wars, Hakobyan warned against repeating past miscalculations where Armenian interests were sacrificed once major powers reconciled their bilateral affairs.
“They may have separate disputes or even go to war with one another, but regarding the Armenian question, they can easily find common ground,” Hakobyan noted. “You cannot constantly take off your shoes before seeing the water. It is extremely dangerous to constantly attempt to realize your national interests through the hands or interests of others. Their strategic goals simply do not align with ours”.
Կարդացել են
1 անգամ