Armenia on the Eve of Elections: Politics Not Grounded in the Economy

The “Framework Agreement on Strategic Cooperation in Accordance with Trump’s Route to International Peace and Prosperity,” signed on May 26, 2026, by Armenian Foreign Minister A. Mirzoyan and U.S. Secretary of State M. Rubio, includes a broad list of areas in which Armenian-American relations are expected to develop.

First and foremost, it concerns the supply of valuable raw materials for U.S. industry, which is regulated by another supplementary framework agreement “On Ensuring the Supply of Mining Products, Critical and Rare Earth Minerals.” The U.S. Secretary of State noted that access to such resources is critically important today for the development of modern technologies. At the same time, the question remains open regarding extraction technologies, which Armenia does not possess, as well as the level of qualification of national personnel.

The agreements reached with the United States also provide for the establishment of transport links through Armenia between mainland Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan exclave. Having “given up” Nagorno-Karabakh, the country’s leadership apparently sees no need for further close cooperation with Russia.

At the same time, Armenian Prime Minister N. Pashinyan states that “Armenia will cooperate with the United States in developing a new geological map” and “will develop cooperation within the Eurasian Economic Union to the maximum possible extent.” Meanwhile, the country’s leadership has repeatedly spoken in favor of the country’s integration into the European Union. However, world history shows that no state has ever managed to “sit on several chairs” at once for long.

Political opponents, in their struggle for the electorate, as experts note, “do not offer solutions to improve Armenia’s future, but only compete over whose defeat would be the greater catastrophe.” None of the opposing sides proposes a clear, well-developed, balanced program of the country’s economic development based on real national resources, both raw materials and labor.

It is obvious that with such an approach, despite the country’s GDP growth (according to official data, 7.2% in 2025), the prospects for economic growth in Armenia are far from “rosy”: the country is of interest to the West as a source of raw materials and another foothold near the Russian border.

The foreign policy line of Armenia’s current leadership once again demonstrates how easy it is to lose reliable partners, proven by years of close cooperation, for the sake of the illusory “bird in the sky” of overseas support. Only this time, it will be the Armenian people who have to “pay the bills.”

Author: Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of World Economy and World Finance at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Natalia Vladimirovna Sergeeva.