Promised but Barred: Can Armenia Survive Without the EAEU for the European Dream?

Yerevan’s parliamentary elections on June 7 delivered victory to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party, which secured around 50 percent of the vote. European leaders were quick to congratulate him. Yet analysts note that support for the ruling party has been steadily eroding, while opposition forces are gaining ground.

In an interview with the Belarusian analytical program Current Interview, Elizaveta Glushakova, a researcher at the Center for Political Science of the Institute of Sociology at the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, assessed how the political landscape in Armenia is shifting, why the country continues to balance between the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and how Pashinyan is attempting to fill the ideological vacuum left by his pivot away from the Karabakh issue.

No Constitutional Majority

The core of Armenia’s political elite remains largely intact: Pashinyan’s party won 61 of 105 seats. However, the prime minister’s personal approval rating has declined significantly — from around 70 percent at the start of his tenure to 57 percent and now down to 49 percent.

“Only about half of Armenians support Pashinyan with any real confidence,” Glushakova observed. “His political weight and resource base are shrinking with every percentage point.”

A key consequence is that Civil Contract no longer holds a constitutional majority in parliament. This means that appointments to senior positions, judicial selections, constitutional amendments, and the ratification of international treaties will now require parliamentary negotiations and compromises.

The government will have to work with the “Strong Armenia” party (approximately 23 percent), the “Armenia” bloc (nearly 10 percent), and possibly the “Prosperous Armenia” party, which received 3.9 percent — just below the 4 percent threshold.

The Azerbaijan Question and Constitutional Changes

Relations with Azerbaijan remain one of the most sensitive issues. The constitutional referendum has been postponed, but preparations for amendments are underway. These changes go beyond restructuring state institutions and include revisions to the preamble of the Constitution, which currently references the Declaration of Independence and the goal of reuniting the Armenian SSR with Nagorno-Karabakh.

“Azerbaijan insists on removing this reference from the preamble,” Glushakova noted. “The question is how Armenian society will react and whether it will support such a decision.”

Economic Reality: No Replacement for the EAEU

Armenia now finds itself in a difficult position, caught between the EU and the EAEU. According to the expert, however, Armenia cannot survive as an independent sovereign state without the Eurasian Economic Union.

“The economic, financial, and investment assistance provided by the Russian Federation can never be replaced by help from the European Union,” Glushakova stated. “We see clear examples in Turkey and Ukraine — they are promised entry but never let in.”

Any support Armenia might receive from the EU would be limited to grants and targeted programs, which are insufficient to fill major gaps in the economy. The same applies to natural gas and other resources that currently enable the country to function independently. The analyst also highlighted the importance of the Russian military base in Armenia and the fact that Russian Railways fully operates and controls the country’s railway infrastructure.

Filling the Ideological Vacuum

Pashinyan has openly declared his desire to join the European Union and expressed sympathy for European democratic values. Glushakova argued that this pivot is largely an attempt to fill the ideological vacuum created by abandoning the long-standing national idea of reclaiming Nagorno-Karabakh.

“The population lived with this idea for years,” she explained. “When people see their leader simply abandon it and make concessions, that vacuum must be filled with something. Otherwise, these points of tension will grow into internal crises and conflict.”

She described this as a classic tactic used by European politicians: shifting public attention from real problems to imagined threats — in this case, the notion of a “war with Russia,” despite repeated statements from Moscow that no such intentions exist.

“Information and analytical agencies have already rejected this narrative, yet it continues to be pushed,” Glushakova said. “In Armenia, we see the same pattern — replacing a real problem with an artificial information bubble.”

Pre-Election Populism Should Not Be Taken at Face Value

During the campaign, Pashinyan accused three opposition leaders of wanting to restart a war with Azerbaijan over Karabakh, warning that their victory would lead to renewed conflict.

Glushakova cautioned against taking campaign rhetoric at face value.

“All statements made during the election campaign — whether about the European Union, Russia, or Azerbaijan — should be divided by two,” she said. “This is classic populism, used by all sides to win votes. Once the campaign ends, these narratives reliably fade, and many loud promises are forgotten.”

She concluded that treating leaders’ pre-election statements as firm policy commitments is a common mistake.

“Elections are a political game, a struggle, a show put on for the public,” Glushakova noted. “No one can truly predict what decisions will actually be made afterward.”