By Maria Zhigadlo
The evolving geopolitical dynamics in the South Caucasus have drawn increasing attention from global powers. Armenia’s recent signing of the Strategic Partnership Charter with the United States marks a significant shift in its foreign policy trajectory, raising questions about its implications for regional stability, relations with Russia, and the balance of power. To delve deeper into these pressing issues, News.Az spoke with Dmitry Rodionov, a prominent Russian political analyst, to explore the underlying motivations, potential consequences, and broader context of this pivotal development.
- What Does the signing of the strategic partnership Charter between Armenia and the United States mean? How do you evaluate the political and economic context of this agreement?
- Certainly, the announcement of this agreement sparked much speculation prior to its signing. Despite its ambitious title, few expected it to have substantial significance, comparable to agreements between Russia and Azerbaijan or Azerbaijan and Turkiye. It is far from resembling military alliances like the CSTO or NATO.
However, despite the lack of serious commitments from either side, the agreement includes several noteworthy aspects that have been largely overlooked.
First, Armenia is effectively becoming an informal NATO partner. While the country doesn’t gain official status, it continues to integrate further into NATO structures despite being a CSTO member. Armenia has previously participated in various military exercises, and now the U.S. proposes involving Armenian forces in combating ISIS. This raises questions about whether Armenia’s military will eventually partake in U.S. military endeavors.
Second, the agreement includes provisions for cooperation in nuclear energy. This suggests that the U.S. might build a new nuclear power plant in Armenia to replace the aging Armenian NPP. This matter has been under discussion for years, with the choice narrowing to the U.S., Russia, and South Korea. It appears Armenia has chosen the U.S.
However, this raises safety concerns in a seismically active region. The Armenian NPP was previously shut down after the Spitak earthquake, and Soviet nuclear plants, despite incidents like Chernobyl, were known for their reliability. Unlike Rosatom, the U.S. does not handle spent nuclear fuel, leaving Armenia responsible for its disposal. This would require the construction of a radioactive waste storage facility, raising environmental concerns for the entire region.
Third, the agreement potentially allows U.S. presence at Armenia’s borders. Following the withdrawal of Russian border guards, their role may be assumed by U.S. representatives. This could extend to oversight of the Zangezur Corridor, should it materialize, raising questions about compliance with the trilateral agreement, which explicitly excludes foreign forces. Nevertheless, Yerevan may justify such steps by citing this U.S. agreement.
- What changes can we expect in U.S.-Armenia relations? Is this a new phase in their partnership?
- The agreement marks a new stage in U.S.-Armenia relations, though it is less about bilateral cooperation and more about U.S. efforts to strengthen its presence in the South Caucasus via Armenia.
In Azerbaijan, such moves are infeasible as Baku would resist them. In Georgia, the U.S. faces political challenges. Armenia, however, is actively inviting U.S. involvement. Initially, this involves the energy sector, and it may later extend to border control. A future scenario could even see U.S. military bases replacing Russia’s facility in Gyumri.
While Armenia’s NATO membership remains unlikely, the presence of U.S. military installations could become a reality. This may eventually lead to Armenia’s withdrawal from the CSTO and full alignment with the West.
- How might the Charter impact Armenia-Russia relations?
- The Charter itself will not drastically alter Armenia-Russia relations, as these are already strained. It is another step in the growing tension between Moscow and Yerevan. In different circumstances, such an agreement would have been surprising and seen as a severe blow. But given the anti-Russian actions of Pashinyan's administration, it is no longer unexpected.
The agreement will not lead to an immediate overhaul of relations but reaffirms Armenia’s gradual shift toward the West and further detachment from Russia.
- What are the regional security implications? Could this shift the balance of power in the South Caucasus?
- The nuclear cooperation aspect raises significant concerns. If the U.S. builds a nuclear plant in Armenia and stores spent fuel there, the risks of a nuclear disaster could have devastating consequences for the entire region, including Azerbaijan, Georgia, Russia, Turkiye, and Iran.
Regarding the balance of power, history shows that U.S. involvement often brings instability and conflict. Washington’s apparent goal is to destabilize the region to weaken Iran and Russia while curbing Turkish influence. Despite Turkiye being a NATO ally, the U.S. is unlikely to support significant strengthening of Ankara’s position.
U.S. interference could foster tension and conflict, creating ongoing friction among regional powers without necessarily escalating into open war. However, it would undoubtedly destabilize the South Caucasus.
- How might Russia respond to the signing of the Charter? Should we expect economic, political, or military actions?
- Russia is unlikely to respond militarily. Instead, it may rely on soft power and economic or political measures. If Armenia withdraws from the CSTO or removes the Russian military base, Moscow might reconsider Armenia’s membership in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), which provides significant benefits to Yerevan, including preferential loans, duty-free access to strategic goods, and an open market.
Armenia also profits from parallel imports under sanctions, a leverage Russia could use against Pashinyan’s administration. However, such steps would be extreme and contingent on Armenia’s continued drift toward the U.S. and its withdrawal from Russia’s sphere of influence. If this trajectory becomes evident, stronger Russian measures could follow.
