The Guardian reported on May 4th that:

“The EU is sending a team of experts specialised in combating Russian propaganda and interference to Armenia, as it increases its support to the former Soviet republic in a tense political period.

In a highly symbolic sequence of events, EU leaders will hold their first summit with Armenia, after a pan-European gathering of about 45 leaders at the European Political Community summit in Yerevan.

The EU has been deepening links with Armenia as Russian influence has waned since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine that is seen as having diverted Moscow’s attention other countries it regards as its ‘near abroad’.”

The EU is, therefore, intent on expanding into Armenia and seems to be in the process of forming an EU/Ukraine/Armenia axis to widen the encircling of Russia. 

Sir Keir Starmer is also involved, of course, bringing the UK back to Europe from Brexit—via the military door.  This is after the recent British estrangement with Trump and the US—which has made clear in recent months that, if they have a special relationship, Britain is not their special one!

Britain’s interest in this EU encircling manoeuvre is in buying itself into arms manufacturing contracts that will form part of a $105 billion “loan” to Ukraine from the EU.  The EU “loan” to Kyiv is structured on the premise that the loan will be repaid by the bankrupt Ukrainians through reparations—which Russia will eventually pay to Ukraine following its defeat!

This scheme could be described as “pie in the sky”—but Britain wants a slice of that pie, knowing full well that the EU will never see its money again.

The EU is a castle built on sand these days, but it is exhibiting dangerous behaviour again—akin to what it did in Ukraine in 2013-14.  Let off the US leash, it reverts to type with regard to Russia.

The EU is now opening up a geo-political division in the South Caucasus.  Over the last few weeks President Aliyev of Azerbaijan has been working on bringing Zelensky and Putin together—aiming to get a peace conference in Baku, to end the disastrous war in Ukraine. 

President Trump—who has so far failed in this area—is probably in support of this, but he has more pressing business at present!

On the other hand, the Europeans are working in the other direction.  They see their interest in keeping the War in Ukraine going—wishing to maintain the idea of a “Russian threat”—with Kyiv acting as Europe’s shield:  continuing to fight and die—so that Europeans don’t have to.  Perish the thought!

            The unelected EU leaders (Von der Leyen, Kallas etc.) know they are under pressure over the widespread decline in living standards, along with mass immigration etc.  It is therefore convenient to use the “Russian threat” in order to hold on to power against increasing opposition from populations and from individual national states. 

The “Russian threat” appears to be the one thing holding the EU together with the end of ‘goodness, peace and prosperity’ ! 

The European Union is now intent on moving into Armenia, to extend its “defensive line” against the Russians—much as it moved into Ukraine in 2013!

            As a consequence Europe is developing a militarised economy, turning its car plants into arms factories, under the prompting of President Trump’s desire to reduce American spending on European defence and his demand that European States fund their own military spending.  This is leading to an expansion of arms manufacturing, and particularly of drone technology and production, within Europe. 

Thus it will be in the economic interest of Europe that War continues indefinitely.  Otherwise there will be no customer for its new industrial products—and, of course, the customer cannot pay bills unless there is a clear victory!  

There may be a European military/industrial complex developing.

With regard to Armenia, The Guardian reports that:

“Armenia’s prime minister, Nikol Pashinyan, and the EU leaders, Ursula von der Leyen and António Costa, are expected to formally welcome the concept of an EU mission to counter foreign interference in Armenia at the summit in Yerevan, where they will also discuss energy, transport and economic support.  The EU is setting up a team of 20-30 civilian experts for a two-year mission based in Armenia aimed at improving the response to Russian cyber-attacks, information manipulation and interference, as well as countering illicit financial flows.  The mission, which could be increased in headcount and duration, is expected to start work after parliamentary elections on 7 June… which are seen as pivotal in determining whether Armenia stays on a broadly pro-western path.  The EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, said last month:  “Armenians are facing massive disinformation campaigns and cyber-attacks. When Armenians go to the polls in June, they alone should choose their country’s future”…”

Prime Minister Pashinyan faces elections in Armenia in June.  He comfortably won the last ones in 2021, right after the disastrous defeat to Azerbaijan in the Karabakh War of 2020.  Leaders who lose do not usually triumph!  But Pashinyan saw off “the Russian threat” that time with seeming ease.

The EU now promotes the pretence that President Pashinyan is under serious threat from Russia and, because of this “Russian threat”, needs their assistance—just as Kyiv did in 2013!

I would doubt that Guardian readers follow Armenian media.  If they did, they would know that there is little chance of Pashinyan losing to the greatly divided myriad opposition—only part of which is pro-Russian, and a very minor one at that.  The major threat comes from pro-Western, more belligerent forces, which are opposed to his peace making with Baku.  But he is content to go along with the EU pretence, since not only will it mean European money for him, but he can promise future EU membership for Armenia, with all living happily ever after!

The EU has been acting opportunistically, attempting to get a foothold in Armenia, and using the bogy of a “Russian threat” to justify its advance.  Where has that happened before?

Here is some more opportunism: 

“A senior EU official described the EU-Armenia summit as a “critical milestone in our relationship” and “a symbol of Armenia, gradually, slowly, geographically reorienting towards the west”…  Armenia was long Russia’s staunchest ally in the Caucasus, but disillusionment set in after Moscow failed to send military aid during the 2020 and 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh wars.  Armenia’s 2018 Velvet Revolution, which emphasised democracy and the rule of law, also set the former Soviet republic on a different path to Russia, which slid deeper into authoritarianism.”

So, Russia let their traditional ally in the South Caucasus down and this is the EU’s chance!

The Armenian Velvet Revolution might have emphasized “democracy and the rule of law” at home, but it soon reverted to revanchism with regard to the occupied regions in Karabakh and beyond:  and took on the slogan of “new war for new territories” before being brought down to earth by the response from Azerbaijan.

Putin’s Russia did not intervene in the short April 2016 War between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Karabakh, which occurred long before the 2022 War in Ukraine, despite it occurring at a time when it was well able to throw its weight around.  Putin, instead, took a scrupulously fair position, based on international law, that Karabakh—and the seven of its regions which had been invaded and occupied by Armenia—were part of Azerbaijan, and universally recognised as being part of Azerbaijan.  

Moreover, since Armenia—a member of the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organisation:  a collective security agreement embracing Bel)—was not being attacked, it did not deserve assistance from its ally. 

That principled position was partly responsible for undermining the old pro-Russian political elite in Yerevan, which had expected Moscow to come to its aid, and it helped Pashinyan to power. 

But remembering such a fact—greatly to the credit of Putin—would not be helpful to the EU narrative of a “Russian threat”!

The fact that Putin did not act to support his CSTO ally, Armenia, in its occupation of a region of  Azerbaijan in 2016 or in 2020, tends to suggest that Russia (under current management) was prepared to live peacably with neighbours who did not threaten them:  for instance, by declaring an intention to join NATO!  Thus the administrations in Georgia and the Ukraine which went along with the proposed NATO expansion, were not tolerated.

The EU is therefore taking advantage of what it sees as Putin’s weakness:  which was to adhere to international law!

Pashinyan was humbled in the defeat of his incursions by Azerbaijan in 2020, and the mopping up of the remaining occupation rump in highland Karabakh in 2023.  He was cut down to size in any ambitions he had proclaimed for “new wars for new territories”.   He then became a realist—and a peacemaker!

Armenian revanchists—many of them long settled in the US and French diasporas—will now be looking with eager anticipation in the direction of the EU!  As has been noted, Europe will have to find buyers for their new military industrial products to beyond Ukraine, if the Union is to fund increased defence expenditure whilst maintaining social services!    And Armenia is a good starting point!

Behind the facade of the EU fanfare in Yerevan, and apparent support for peace in the region, France and Armenia signed a declaration on strategic partnership on 5th May, during a State visit by French President Emmanuel Macron.  Under this declaration, Armenia and France plan to—

“significantly expand and deepen relations in security by developing co-operation in the defence industry, strengthening co-operation in defence research and innovation, deepening co-operation within western organisations on regional and international security issues, and continuing dialogue between their military chiefs of staff.”

Despite such declarations of peace-making for all and sundry, there is little doubt that Armenia is to be the main channel of EU expansion in the South Caucasus region. 

Armenians are seen as Christian Europeans, and there is a long tradition of European support for them.  After all, they have had a ‘colour revolution’, their leadership is not ex-Soviet, and they an economy which is very open to European penetration!

All these things mark them out from Azerbaijan, with its impenetrable State-directed system, and from Georgia as well—which has reversed course after its 2008 mishap. 

Armenia also has a large Russian military base:  that the EU wishes to dismantle through popular pressure. 

On the other hand, the Azerbaijan Parliament announced the “suspension of cooperation with the European Parliament in all areas” on 1st May,  after the EU Parliament adopted an offensive declaration with regard to the Azerbaijani liberation of Karabakh.  

This Statement contained the inference that there had been ethnic cleansing of Karabakh Armenians.  It also used the old Soviet term “Nagorno-Karabakh” to describe the region—despite the fact that this Oblast ceased to exist in 1992:  when the Armenians seized it from Azerbaijan, along with 7 other provinces, and went on to drive out 750,000 Muslim inhabitants and rename it “Artsakh”!

How much lower can the EU sink, with its refusal to recognise the rights of the inhabitants of a region under cover of an insistence on using an obsolete Soviet term—one that died with the Armenian destruction of the Soviet settlement and the USSR Constitution!

It must not be forgotten that the EU has already shown that it can prove to be a dangerous force in the region—for all its progressive sounding mission!  

In 2013 it attempted to destabilise Ukraine by proposing an economic deal that greatly appealed to Western Ukrainian nationalists, but which would have devastated the economy of the industrialised Eastern- and Russian-speaking part.  When the Kiev Government rejected the deal, the EU sparked the Maidan colour revolution. 

US Under-Secretary Victoria Nuland and the CIA were appalled at the Europeans opening up the situation in Ukraine in the West’s favour—but then failing to follow through with an intervention.  Nuland famously exclaimed “Fuck the EU!” and promptly organised the coup that succeeded in ousting the democratically-elected Government of Ukraine—an administration which held the country together. 

Thus began the Ukrainian civil war—which metamorphosed into the Ukraine/Russia War—which might be regarded as another civil war of sorts—extravagantly supported by the West and now Europe, to the last Ukrainian!

Has the EU, in conjunction with Nikol Pashinyan—with good intentions or bad—blundered into another region and set Armenia on the same trajectory?

Pat Walsh

Andrew Korybko’s Newsletter

Von Der Leyen’s Quip About Turkiye Exposed The Artificiality Of Its Partnership With The EU

ANDREW KORYBKO

MAY 08, 2026

Turkiye’s partnership with what became the EU was only due to US machinations after World War II.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen sparked a scandal in EU-Turkish ties after telling the media in late April that “We must succeed in completing the European continent so that it is not influenced by Russia, Türkiye, or China.” The conflation of Turkiye, a fellow NATO member and EU candidate country, with the EU’s Russian rival and increasingly perceived Chinese one suggested that Brussels perceives it the same way. Her quip exposed the artificiality of their decades-long partnership.

Although at times entering into opportunistic temporary partnerships with the European Great Powers, Turkiye’s Ottoman predecessor state has historically been Europe’s primary rival, more so than the Russian Empire was misportrayed as by the Brits since the Ottomans were civilizationally dissimilar. They also conquered the Balkans up to Vienna and occupied part of Europe for over half a millennium. Turkiye’s partnership with what became the EU was only due to US machinations after World War II.

The perceived need to contain the USSR led to the creation of NATO in 1949, three years after which Greece and Turkiye joined as a means of helping Greece and Europe as a whole overcome their historical rivalry with Turkiye, including through the fostering of a European-Turkish partnership in general. One form that this took was the massive import of Turkish guest workers by the erstwhile West Germany, the dual core of the EU’s European Economic Community predecessor together with France.

Migration, economic ties, and military cooperation continued in the decades since, but it quickly became clear that civilizational dissimilarities between Europe and Turkiye preordained that the latter’s application to join what later became the EU would be indefinitely postponed on various pretexts. Closer trade and military ties are fine, but giving Turkiye voting rights over European affairs isn’t, let alone visa-free travel for what are now its nearly 90 million people (slightly more than Germany itself).

The aforesaid assessment was already the case during the liberal-globalist heyday of the 1990s and 2000s till the 2015 Migrant Crisis and especially Trump’s election in 2016 led to a revival of conservative-nationalist sentiment across Europe that’s since grown after the latest phase of the Ukrainian Conflict. Trump’s return coupled with that protracted conflict’s severe socio-economic consequences for average Europeans turbocharged such sentiment and heralded the beginning of the civilization-state era.

This refers to those polities that left lasting socio-political legacies on others over the centuries, and Europe as a whole is most definitely one of them, though it also has some distinct civilizations therein. Accordingly, the civilization-state era is witnessing the reconsolidation of these spheres like what von der Leyen envisages as regards her self-declared quest to “complete the European continent” and even their growth such as the newly accelerated expansion of “Neo-Ottoman” Turkiye’s influence in Central Asia.

This doesn’t mean that civilizations are destined to clash, but nor does it mean that they’re destined to converge like what some assumed would happen when Turkiye applied to join the EU’s predecessor. Rather, the reality of civilizational distinctiveness is beginning to dawn on all, but those two in particular will always have a special relationship for geographic reasons, historical ones, and their respective roles in actively containing their shared historical Russian rival at their shared US senior partner’s behest.

PAT WALSH