The British analysis center Chatham House has published an interesting report entitled “The Long Goodbye: Waning Russian Influence in the South Caucasus and Central Asia”, which covers in details Russia’s policy in South Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as the political, economic and cultural influence on those regions.
We are more interested in the section that concerns Armenia. Several newspapers have discussed that part of the report, however the report contains other interesting information that has not been covered. The reporter James Nixey covered the presence of Russia in South Caucasus and wrote the following: “The levers of Russian influence here vary. They are economic and military in Armenia. Russian influence in Armenia is so great that lack of sovereignty should be Armenia’s number one concern.” Russia’s influence is reported to be weaker in the neighboring countries. “The governments in Azerbaijan and especially Georgia, where there is less Russian soft power at work, have more traditional security concerns about Russia. Armenia does not share these concerns (at least openly),” writes the report.
The report also touches upon the issue of Karabakh conflict and writes that Russia is supporting Armenia in order to limit Turkey’s influence and resist the anti-Russian moods in Azerbaijan, as well as in consideration of the Armenian community’s important role in Russia. By the way, the reporter believes the biggest tool of influence Russia has over Armenia and Azerbaijan is the labor of the millions of immigrants working there. Concerning the issue of Karabakh the report writes the following: “It still considers Russia to be a dishonest broker, perhaps partly owing to the Armenian background of Russian foreign minister and chief negotiator Sergei Lavrov, but probably mostly from fear of a pax Russica in Nagorno-Karabakh, which Azerbaijan considers to be its territory. A full-blown renewal of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
would jeopardize Russia’s position in Azerbaijan and Turkey, particularly if the Armenians required military assistance.” Concerning Russia’s relations with Armenia’s neighbors the report writes, “There have been only small successes and in particular there is less penetration of the energy sphere than one might expect in such a hydrocarbon- rich country. Russia controls only one oil pipeline – Baku–Novorossisk – and nothing in the way of gas. The 2003 opening of the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhun (BTC) pipeline, which bypasses Russia, considerably reduced Azerbaijan’s energy dependence on Russia.”
Concerning Georgia the report writes that following the Russian-Georgian war in 2008 the Russian troops were taken out from there, but did not go to Russia, instead were transported to the Russian bases in Armenia’s Gyumry. Even more, the Russian investments before 2008 did not stop working in Georgia, and even many of those investments are still working there and there is border trade going on between the two countries. Concerning Armenia’s economic dependence from Russia the reporter writes, “In 2003, the CEO of United Energy Systems (UES), Anatoliy Chubais, outlined plans to integrate the South Caucasus into a Russia-led energy-supply network through ten former Soviet republics, as well as plans to ensure electricity outflows from Armenia to Turkey and Azerbaijan. Chubais denied that UES sought political gains but he has been a leading proponent of the concept of a Eurasian ‘liberal empire’ and his actions gave Russia almost total control of Armenia’s energy market.” However, the most interesting part of the report is the section which writes that it was mainly due to former president Robert Kocharyan that Russia’s influence was increased so much in Armenia. “It was Robert Kocharian, Armenia’s president from 1998 to 2008, who effectively sold off Armenia to Chubais and other Russian commercial and political interests. Through Gazprom’s ownership of its Armenian subsidiary, ArmRosGazprom, 80% of Armenia’s energy structure is Russian-controlled, including the majority of the Iran–Armenia gas pipeline, thus ensuring that Armenia cannot become an independent transit country should Iranian gas ever reach European markets. Russia has also bought up all but two of Armenia’s hydroelectric and nuclear power stations, in exchange for writing off Armenian debt.” The report also writes about the purchase of 70% of Armavia company by the Russian Syberia Airline Company, 70% of Armsavingsbank by the Russian VneshTorgBank, etc. Concerning Kocharyan’s successor Serh Sargsyan the report writes that he is less pro-Russian, however in 2008, when he was elected president, most of Armenia had already been sold to Russia by Kocharyan. This last observation is very interesting, especially in consideration of the compliments of Hillary Clinton during her visit saying that Sargsyan is a great leader, as well as the positive estimations of the elections and other positive on part of other western powers toward the incumbent leader. However, the authors of the report did not mention what the president has done during the four years of his tenure to make Armenia economically independent. In fact the gas pipe from Iran to Armenia is controlled by Russia, the prices are controlled too, and Armenia cannot implement independent policy in this issue. The concession agreement on constructing Iran-Armenia railway has been taken by the Russian Railways company, which, by the way, happened after Sargsyan became president. The biggest partnership agreement with Russian was signed during Ter-Petrosyan’s tenure in 1997. Armenia became a member of the collective security treaty in 1992. The Russian military bases have always been in Armenia since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Again, during Sargsyan’s office, in 2012, the term of the agreement on allocation of the Russian armed forces in Armenia was prolonged for more 49 years. The above means that in fact the development of close strategic ties with Russia started during Ter-Petrosyan’s office, developed during Kocharyan’s presidency and now continues to develop with the same logic. Accordingly, it is not a right thing to do to view this issue in a narrow look and discuss only through the prospective of a person. The estimations of the Chatham House shows one more time that there are contradictions between the political powers having different foreign policy attitudes before the presidential election and the fact that there is pressure on them from external powers. It is evident that these messages coming from the West will be used by the Armenian government to legitimize their power one more time and target those messages against their political foes, which can influence on the competition between the political powers having pro-Western or pro-Russian orientation.
Aram SARGSYAN