Naive hope": why Yerevan's attempt to split the EAEU failed The Armenian government presents the report of the EAEU countries as a "conspiracy" and an "attempt to destabilize the situation". However, such an approach, according to political scientist Suren Surenyants, is at least unprofessional. On Radio Sputnik Armenia, he explained why Yerevan's foreign policy games did not work and what actually stands behind the united position of the four EU countries. According to the expert, the EAEU report presents the possible economic consequences for Armenia in case of leaving the Union: the price of Russian gas will increase by 69%, and the GDP will decrease by 15%. Instead of recognizing these risks and starting to work with them, the Armenian authorities preferred to accuse their partners of wanting to cause instability. "Not considering the consequences of one's own policies, avoiding responsibility for the consequences of one's own policies and attributing to this report the desire to cause instability is, to say the least, an unprofessional approach," Soranientes said. He recalled that this is not the first time that the Armenian authorities were clearly told: the two customs regimes - EAEU and the European Union - are not suitable, and Armenia must make the final choice. Instead, Yervan tried to play a double game. Bet on a split that didn't work out According to the political scientist, the Armenian government naively hoped that as a result of political and diplomatic maneuvers it would be able to achieve a split in the EAEU. The foreign policy towards Kazakhstan has been quite active in the last year: Yerevan even tried to "seduce" President Kassem-Jomart Tokayev and others with promises to manage a railway concession. Perhaps Nikol Pashinyan hoped to find allies in the Central Asian countries, but this did not happen. It turned out that the EAEU report is consolidated and signed by all member states of the Union, except Armenia.

Naive hope": why Yerevan's attempt to split the EAEU failed The Armenian government presents the report of the EAEU countries as a "conspiracy" and an "attempt to destabilize the situation". However, such an approach, according to political scientist Suren Surenyants, is at least unprofessional. On Radio Sputnik Armenia, he explained why Yerevan's foreign policy games did not work and what actually stands behind the united position of the four EU countries. According to the expert, the EAEU report presents the possible economic consequences for Armenia in case of leaving the Union: the price of Russian gas will increase by 69%, and the GDP will decrease by 15%. Instead of recognizing these risks and starting to work with them, the Armenian authorities preferred to accuse their partners of wanting to cause instability. "Not considering the consequences of one's own policies, avoiding responsibility for the consequences of one's own policies and attributing to this report the desire to cause instability is, to say the least, an unprofessional approach," Soranientes said. He recalled that this is not the first time that the Armenian authorities were clearly told: the two customs regimes - EAEU and the European Union - are not suitable, and Armenia must make the final choice. Instead, Yervan tried to play a double game. Bet on a split that didn't work out According to the political scientist, the Armenian government naively hoped that as a result of political and diplomatic maneuvers it would be able to achieve a split in the EAEU. The foreign policy towards Kazakhstan has been quite active in the last year: Yerevan even tried to "seduce" President Kassem-Jomart Tokayev and others with promises to manage a railway concession. Perhaps Nikol Pashinyan hoped to find allies in the Central Asian countries, but this did not happen. It turned out that the EAEU report is consolidated and signed by all member states of the Union, except Armenia.