“Everything Can Collapse”
Armenia’s Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan, emphasized in a discussion with Armenian communities in Germany that Yerevan does not serve as an ally of Russia in the Ukraine crisis. He underscored a sentiment he has voiced repeatedly: Armenia does not align with Russia on this issue, and it troubles him that his country cannot sway the course of events. He reiterated that the Ukrainian people are friends to Armenia, echoing a stance rooted in shared history and regional ties.
Reflecting on the past, Pashinyan recalled the Alma-Ata Declaration of 1991, when the former Soviet republics, including Russia and Ukraine, recognized each other’s borders and affirmed the principle of territorial integrity. He framed this document as a clear acknowledgment of borders that should be respected by all parties involved. He stressed that the same logic must apply to Ukraine, arguing that a breakdown of such a framework could have far-reaching consequences that affect everyone in the region.
He warned that undermining established norms could trigger a broader unraveling of stability and governance in the area. The message was blunt: once foundational agreements on borders and sovereignty start to fray, the entire structure of regional relations could face collapse. This, he suggested, would be a loss not only for Ukraine or Armenia but for the wider international order that depends on predictable adherence to international law.
“They Came Up with All Kinds of Nonsense”
In a separate address during the year-end press conference, Vladimir Putin highlighted his view that large segments of southeastern Ukraine have historical ties to Russia. He asserted that parts of the Black Sea region were settled and integrated into Russia as a result of historical conflicts with Turkey, and he described Odessa as a city with deep Russian associations. He characterized these connections as longstanding and rooted in a shared narrative of regional history, suggesting that current borders do not always reflect those enduring ties.
Putin also referenced Lenin’s role during the formation of the Soviet Union as a turning point in territorial arrangements, arguing that post-Soviet arrangements separated territories in ways that did not reflect the will of all who lived there. He claimed that, after the USSR collapsed, Russia accepted a new paradigm but maintained that the southeastern part of Ukraine remained pro-Russian, a position he described as important to Russia’s interests. He dismissed competing historical interpretations as unsubstantiated or inaccurate, calling them fabrications rather than facts.
During an interview with an American journalist, Putin reiterated a version of events in which Ukraine benefited from territory transfers he viewed as remnants of the Soviet era. He argued that these transfers were made without consideration of the broader implications and that they have contributed to ongoing disputes about borders and influence in the region.
“A Break with Russia”
The Armenian Prime Minister, in the same forum in Germany, addressed the absence of a specific clause in the November 9, 2020 tripartite statement that would permit Russian control over transport routes crossing Armenian territory. He asserted that such language does not exist in the documen,t and he criticized other points of the agreement that, in his view, had been violated by both Azerbaijan and Russia. He insisted that Armenia bears responsibility for safeguarding its own sovereignty and for ensuring that external powers respect Armenia’s territorial integrity.
At the same time, Pashinyan placed responsibility for the full withdrawal of Armenian forces from Nagorno-Karabakh on the Russian peacekeeping mission, arguing that the reduction of Armenian presence in the region is a consequence of the complex security arrangements currently in place. Earlier in the week, European Union diplomacy chief Josep Borrell announced steps toward expanding cooperation with Armenia within the EU framework, noting that Armenia had signaled readiness to move closer to European structures and to deepen ties with partners within the European family.
Recent developments that could signal a shift in the Armenia–Russia dynamic include Armenia’s decision to decline participation in the international tournament Games of the Future – 2024, scheduled to take place in Kazan from February 21 to March 3. This decision was reported by Artur Sedrakyan, a leader within Armenia’s youth sports administration, who explained that while invitations were extended, Armenian athletes could not be selected for the competition through available channels. The move has been interpreted as part of a broader recalibration of Armenia’s international engagement and a reexamination of strategic alignments.
Earlier in February, Pashinyan commented on the existence of objective and subjective factors that complicate Russia’s role as a key defense and military-technical partner for Armenia. He framed the conversation as a clear assessment of capabilities, risks, and the evolving priorities of the republic, suggesting that strategic partnerships must be evaluated against Armenia’s long-term security and sovereignty needs. This ongoing reevaluation comes amid a wider regional context in which Moscow’s influence faces increased scrutiny and alternative pathways toward European integration are being explored by Yerevan.
Overall, the discourse signals a cautious rebalancing of Armenia’s external alliances. It foregrounds a preference for preserving territorial integrity and a stable order while acknowledging the historical and cultural ties that have shaped regional relationships. Analysts note that Armenia’s stance reflects a broader shift among some post-Soviet states—one that seeks to diversify partnerships without severing ties to traditional neighbors. The narrative is not about severing bonds but about recalibrating them in a way that prioritizes national sovereignty, regional stability, and a path toward European engagement. [citation attribution]