Armenia at a Crossroads in Its Destiny

May and June 2026: two months that cement Armenia’s ties with the European Union

© The Smithsonian for Folklife and Cultural Heritage – Crowd of protesters in the Place of Republic in Yerevan, during the Velvet Revolution in 2018

An analysis. With this article by Arthur Robert, we offer a detailed look at the recent diplomatic events of early May with France and the European Union, Russian reactions, and the June 7 legislative elections won by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

In May 2026, within a forty-eight-hour window, Yerevan hosted the 8th summit of the European Political Community (EPC), inaugurated the first-ever bilateral EU-Armenia summit, signed a strategic partnership with France, and concluded a connectivity partnership with the European Commission.

The sequence of May 4–5, 2026 was both the culmination of an Armenian repositioning begun in 2018 and a strong political signal, one month ahead of the June 7 legislative elections in which the country’s positioning toward Europe and Russia was a central theme. This sequence allowed Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to reinforce the geostrategic shift he had initiated, consisting of moving away from Russia’s orbit and deepening relations with the EU.

For Brussels and Paris, the stake was to consolidate a foothold in the Caucasus, at a time when Georgia is drifting away and Russia is militarily absorbed by Ukraine. Kaja Kallas, Vice-President of the European Commission and High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, recalled during the summit that “Armenia would decide for itself.”

Thus, the victory of Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract party in the June 7, 2026 legislative elections sealed the rapprochement between Armenia and the European Union. Civil Contract won with nearly 50% of the vote, while the parties favoring closer ties with Russia — Armenia Strong, led by Samvel Karapetyan, and the Armenia Alliance, led by Robert Kocharyan — obtained 23% and 10% of the vote, respectively. While the outgoing Prime Minister’s party, in power since 2018, retained an absolute majority, it lost seven seats compared to the 2021 legislative elections, depriving it of the two-thirds majority that would have allowed it to pursue the constitutional revision demanded by Azerbaijan.

© Department of Foreign Affairs and International Development, Archives Direction (geographic division) – November 2014

 

The European Political Community (EPC) Summit: a symbolically charged first outside the EU

The 8th EPC summit, the first held outside the EU, brought together on May 4, 2026 in Yerevan more than forty heads of state and government, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, under the motto “Building the Future: Unity and Stability in Europe.” Four major themes emerged from the summit:

  • Democratic resilience, with the idea that Armenian democracy must be protected from “external interference and disinformation,” a direct consequence of Russian hybrid warfare;
  • Trans-Caucasian and trans-Caspian connectivity, in the current context of the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) and the Middle Corridor, of which Armenia now aspires to be a branch via the future TRIPP route;
  • Economic and energy security, with reduced dependence on fossil fuels and the rise of renewables and nuclear power;
  • Defense and strategic autonomy, driven by the Ukrainian context.
© Alain Boinet – City of Meghri, in the district of Syunik, South of Armenia near borders with Iran, Azerbaidjan and Nakhitchevan. It’s the spot within the Latchin corridor through which should go the TRIPP road and a railway.

The choice of Yerevan for this first EPC summit outside the EU marks political recognition of Armenia’s trajectory, begun in 2017 with the signing of a Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between the EU and Armenia, which entered into force in 2021. After the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023, Yerevan’s pivot westward continued with the announcement in April 2024 of an EU Resilience and Growth Plan for Armenia, endowed with €270 million over the 2024–2027 period.

 

The first EU-Armenia summit: a further step toward accession

On May 5, 2026, following the EPC, António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, co-chaired with Nikol Pashinyan the first bilateral EU-Armenia summit, marked by the signing of a joint declaration reaffirming the EU’s commitment “to supporting Armenia’s sovereignty, resilience and reform agenda,” with both parties committing to “expand their long-term strategic cooperation.”

Armenia’s path continued with the adoption of the law “On Launching the Process of Armenia’s Accession to the EU” by the National Assembly in March 2025, which makes EU candidacy a legally binding orientation for the Armenian executive. Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan indicated in October 2025 that a formal application could be submitted the following year. Subsequently, a strategic agenda for the EU-Armenia partnership was adopted in December 2025.

© Armenian governement gallery – Opening ceremony of the EPC in May 2026

Two partnerships were sealed during the summit:

  • The EU-Armenia Connectivity Partnership, covering energy, transport and digital sectors;
  • The allocation of €30 million under the European Peace Facility (EPF) for Armenia’s armed forces. This amount combines a first tranche of €10 million (signed in 2024) and a second of €20 million adopted in January 2026.

 

The France-Armenia strategic partnership: a “singular relationship” institutionalized

French President Emmanuel Macron played a key role in this sequence, which cemented the strength of the France-Armenia friendship, just as the French Senate and National Assembly played a driving role in the maturation of this partnership, through:

  • The activism of the France-Armenia friendship group;
  • The Senate resolution of November 25, 2020 on the “need to recognize the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh”;
  • The Senate resolution of November 15, 2023 condemning Azerbaijan and calling for European sanctions.

Welcomed by large crowds expressing sympathy in the streets of the capital, Emmanuel Macron spoke of a “singular relationship” and Armenia’s “European vocation,” and signed with Nikol Pashinyan the declaration on the French-Armenian strategic partnership, complemented by a series of contracts carried out by French companies.

© Armenian government – Signing of France-Armenia agreemets on May the 5th 2026

In the field of defense, the partnership establishes Paris as one of Armenia’s main arms suppliers and extends cooperation begun in 2023, including:

  • Continuation of orders signed in October 2023: three Thales GM200 radars, 50 Arquus Bastion armored vehicles, as well as a letter of intent for MBDA Mistral surface-to-air missiles;
  • Continuation of deliveries of the 36 CAESAR howitzers ordered in June 2024. The first units were presented in Armenia in May 2026 ahead of the May 28 military parade.

In the economic field, Vinci and Razel-Bec signed a declaration of intent to participate in the construction of the Bargushat tunnel, a key piece of infrastructure for connecting with the Georgian port of Poti and the south of the country. In civil nuclear power, France (Framatome) positioned itself among other competitors for the construction of the future small modular reactor (SMR) intended to replace Metsamor. In the aerospace sector, FlyOne Armenia ordered two Airbus A321neo aircraft, while Armenia’s Ministry of Defense acquired six Airbus H145 military helicopters.

© Olivier Decottignies – Signing of defense agreements on the 22nd and 23rd of February 2024 in Yerevan between defense ministers Sébastien Lecornu and Souren Papikian

 

Armenia’s geopolitical repositioning as a central issue in the legislative elections

As the timing of the EU-Armenia summit illustrates, the rapprochement with Europe, along with the exit from Russia’s orbit, were central themes of Armenia’s June 2026 legislative elections.

Civil Contract took a position breaking with the historic relationship of vassalage between Armenia and Russia — a classic feature of the relationship Russia seeks with former Soviet states, according to political scientist Taline Papazian. The Prime Minister championed a doctrine of “real Armenia,” consisting of refocusing the state on its internationally recognized borders and renouncing any claim to Nagorno-Karabakh, and promised the adoption of a new Constitution presented as a “Fourth Republic.”

This campaign took place against a backdrop of tensions with the religious establishment, since since June 2025 Nikol Pashinyan has publicly called for the departure of Catholicos Karekin II, head of the Armenian Apostolic Church, whom he accuses of having broken his vow of celibacy. In February 2026, the Armenian prosecutor’s office launched proceedings against the Catholicos.

The confrontation with the Church became a central dividing line with the opposition, which largely positioned itself as the defender of the clergy. It is in this context that Samvel Karapetyan, a Russian-Armenian billionaire and founder of the “Armenia Strong” alliance (23% in the June 2026 elections), entered politics. In June 2025 he had pledged to “defend” the Church, before being arrested for “calling for the seizure of power” and placed under house arrest. Ineligible due to his Russian and Cypriot citizenship, he handed leadership of the party list to his nephew Narek Karapetyan, who is himself under investigation for concealing Russian citizenship. The alliance promised to revise the Constitution to allow Samvel Karapetyan to become Prime Minister. Documents published by the investigative outlet The Insider allege past ties between him and Russia’s FSB, which his camp has denied, calling it a fabrication.

© Wikimedia Commons – A CSTO Summit in Yntymak Ordo Residence , Bishkek, in November 2025

The other opposition forces shared this pro-Russian orientation while differing in profile and degree. The “Armenia Alliance” (10% in the June 2026 elections), led by former President Robert Kocharyan, advocated for remaining in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization — a military alliance created and led by Moscow in 2002, grouping six former Soviet republics). The “Armenia Alliance” also seeks closer ties with Moscow and rejects any constitutional concession to Azerbaijan, which part of the opposition views as a betrayal.

Judicial affairs fueled the polarization among the protagonists. In addition to Samvel Karapetyan, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, leader of the 2024 protest movement against territorial concessions to Azerbaijan, remained in pre-trial detention over an alleged coup plot. Armenia’s Investigative Committee reported 59 criminal cases for electoral fraud, mainly targeting people close to the opposition. Those concerned see this as judicial instrumentalization against their candidates, while the government invokes the rule of law and the fight against foreign interference.

The geopolitical divisions of the Armenian election were accompanied by a large-scale Russian interference operation reportedly involving Russia’s three main intelligence services (the SVR, FSB and GRU). This operation took the form of a disinformation campaign using methods well known to European authorities, such as Doppelganger or Storm-1516. The campaign notably aimed to tarnish the reputation of Nikol Pashinyan, code-named “Boroda” (meaning “beard”), and was reportedly accompanied by efforts by Russian services to gather information that could compromise Pashinyan. Finally, Russia is said to have devised a plan to transfer 100,000 Armenians from Russia in order to influence the vote, in addition to its support for the “Armenia Strong” alliance.

 

A minor regional revolution that challenges Russia

The months of May and June 2026 brought Armenia’s estrangement from Russia, begun in 2018, to its peak. Abandoned by its historic partner during the two successive phases of conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (or Artsakh) with Azerbaijan (2021–2022 and 2023), Armenia has frozen its participation in the CSTO since February 2024. Following an agreement, Russia withdrew its border guards from Yerevan airport in July 2024, where they had been stationed since 1992. Nikol Pashinyan spoke of a “point of no return” in December 2024, and in March 2025 Yerevan notified Moscow of its refusal to fund the CSTO’s 2024 budget.

© Wikimedia Commons – Vladimir Putin with Armenian Prime minister Nikol Pachinian in Kremlin (April 2026)

Russia reacted strongly to Armenia’s distancing from the CSTO, and reacted even more forcefully to the May-June 2026 sequence, viewing Volodymyr Zelensky’s participation in the EU summit in Yerevan in particular as a betrayal.

The day after the European summits in Yerevan, Russian diplomacy denounced a “rapprochement” with Brussels intended, according to Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, to draw Armenia into an “irreversible involvement in the EU’s anti-Russian line.” Meeting at the EAEU summit in Astana on May 28, 2026, the Moscow-led bloc deemed that Armenia’s EU candidacy posed “serious risks” to its economic security, and mandated a review of a possible suspension of Armenia by December.

Armenia was also subjected to a series of economic restrictions by Russia, its main economic partner (around 37% of Armenian exports go to Russia, while nearly 30% of imports come from there). Most of these restrictions were justified by Russia on sanitary grounds, but their timing leaves little doubt as to Russia’s intent to punish Armenia for its geopolitical trajectory.

As early as April 2026, Russia banned the Armenian cognac brand Proshyan on its territory, a week after a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Nikol Pashinyan. On May 29, Vladimir Putin compared Yerevan’s trajectory to the “Ukrainian scenario” and brandished the trade weapon, stating that Russia would be “forced to limit its economic activities in Armenia” if the country moved closer to the EU. The following day, Moscow recalled its ambassador to Armenia for “consultations on measures taken” against Armenia over its “rapprochement with the European Union, undermining cooperation within the EAEU.”

As the elections approached, these restrictions intensified. On May 22, the Russian agency Rosselkhoznadzor (responsible for veterinary and sanitary surveillance and control of goods entering Russia) temporarily restricted imports of floral products from Armenia. For similar reasons, Russia blocked tens of millions of bottles of Jermuk mineral water — a popular Armenian brand in Russia — at the end of May.

© Armenian government – Armenian Prime minister arménien, Nikol Pachinian, voting during the June 2026 elections

Starting May 30, 2026, Rosselkhoznadzor also imposed “temporary restrictions” on imports of tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and strawberries from Armenia. On June 2, these restrictions were extended to several fruits, and on June 3 to Armenian eggplants, potatoes, and dried fruits. Finally, on June 12, Russia blocked the import of all quarantine-subject products from Armenia, as well as their transit through its territory to member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).

On June 15, Kaja Kallas indicated that the EU was preparing a large-scale economic aid plan for Armenia to help it cope with Russian retaliatory measures.

 

An unprecedented partnership in the Caucasus

The French and EU-Armenian partnerships could, in the medium term, become the prototype for a European security policy in the eastern neighborhood.

Georgia’s trajectory offers, by contrast, a counter-example of a failed shift. After obtaining EU candidate status in December 2023, Georgia abruptly backtracked under the effect of its domestic politics. As early as May 2024, the pro-Russian Georgian Dream party pushed through a “foreign agents” law modeled on the Russian one, deemed by Brussels incompatible with democratic standards. The October 2024 legislative elections, won by Georgian Dream in a vote marred by irregularities, sealed the rupture. In November 2024, just hours after the European Parliament adopted a resolution rejecting the election results due to irregularities, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze announced the suspension of EU accession negotiations until the end of 2028, accusing the EU of blackmail. Moreover, deliveries to Armenia were interrupted: of the 50 Bastion armored vehicles promised by France, only 26 had been delivered, due to transit difficulties through Georgia since the end of 2024.

 

Despite recent progress, a situation that remains fragile

While Armenia in June 2026 no longer appears to be a “disappointed ally” of Moscow but rather a distinct strategic partner with robust ties to Europe, the new Armenian situation remains fragile.

First, while normalization between Azerbaijan and Armenia appears to be continuing, its longevity cannot be predicted. The tripartite protocol of August 2025, signed in the presence of Donald Trump, Pashinyan, and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, creates unprecedented conditions for peace. But Baku is conditioning the formal signing of the treaty on the revision of the Armenian Constitution to remove all reference to Nagorno-Karabakh, which could reignite tensions in a context of clear Azerbaijani military superiority. Yet neither the EU nor France is in a position to provide Armenia with security guarantees comparable to those long offered by Russia, which still maintains a base in the country housing 4,000 soldiers.

© The White House – Donald Trump, Nikol Pachinian and Ilham Aliev in Washington on the 8th of August 2025 during the signing of the TRIPP (Trump Route Initiative for International Peace and Prosperity)

Second, Russia’s economic and political retaliatory measures are expected to have a significant impact on the Armenian economy.

Finally, the June 2026 legislative elections showed that parties advocating closer ties with Russia remain very popular. In the long term, Armenia’s deep historical ties with Russia and the reality of its geographic position will likely compel Armenia to normalize its relations with Russia.

As Taline Papazian sums it up, Armenia faces the complex challenge of “transforming an imposed rupture into a coherent political project, capable of reconciling sovereignty, democratic stability, and openness to its regional and European environment.”

Arthur Robert.


Arthur Robert is an analyst within the sectors of geopolitics and economy. He works for public institutions as well as the private sector while being a teaching assistant.


Discover other articles from this edition :

Who wants peace prepares for war

Interview with General (2S) Grégoire de Saint-Quentin

Exercice international Saber Junction-2018
  • Alain Boinet : A year ago, in a previous interview (Geopolitics of Defence), you pointed out that beyond the strategic break represented by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it was the questioning of borders that was the main event. A year later, it is the President of the United States, Donald Trump, who is turning the table on the alliance with Europe and threatening to abandon Ukraine. What are the origins and consequences of this new strategic situation?

Grégoire de Saint-Quentin : I think the observation we made a year ago is still entirely valid. The annexation of territories by force, prohibited by the international regulatory mechanisms put in place in 1945, is back more than ever. The election of Donald Trump has had no containment effect, but rather risks amplifying the phenomenon, since the United States, with its political and military power, has until now been the keystone of this regulatory system. By putting pressure on Canada to become the 51st member of the European Union, or on Denmark to bring Greenland under American sovereignty, or even when he seems to have come to terms with Ukraine’s loss of sovereignty over part of its territory in the search for a peace agreement, Donald Trump is ushering his country and the world into a completely new geopolitical era.

This brutal change is an extremely strong signal to all regimes with expansionist ambitions, starting with Russia, which has always historically been built on the military subjugation of its neighbours. Witness the Kremlin’s current slogan: ‘Russia’s borders know no bounds’. The most visible and dramatic consequence of this new strategic order is the primacy of the law of the strongest and the return of wars of annexation in Europe, Africa and tomorrow perhaps in Asia.

  • Europe, having favoured the peace dividend, seems to have been taken completely by surprise by the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and now by the reversal of Donald Trump’s United States. What lessons should we draw from this?

Europe is seeing all its strategic choices of the last thirty years called into question at a delicate moment in its history. It built its model by delegating its security to the United States and developing its economy on massive flows of Russian oil and gas at attractive prices. For the reasons we have just outlined, this system is no longer working at a time when Europe is reaching a peak in debt as a result of previous crises. Our margins for manoeuvre are narrow at a time when we have to make a major budgetary effort to adapt the military resources of the Member States.

Europe is therefore at a key moment in its history, because it really must rethink itself in a much more autonomous way than before. It was founded in a world of cooperation and now finds itself brutally thrust into a world of power relations with protean threats, both military and internal, with the weakening of its dominant political model, that of parliamentary democracy. What’s more, it is imperative to restore economic growth at a time when the main promises in this area are held out by the technological revolution (AI), an area in which the Americans and the Chinese are largely dominant. Lastly, Donald Trump’s all-out tax policy is penalising the entire global economy and, at least for the time being, damaging Europe’s economic prospects.

  • A year ago, the minimum defence budget was set at 2% of GDP. Today, Donald Trump is talking about 5%. In 2017, France’s defence budget was €32 billion, in 2025 it will be €50.5 billion, in 2030 it will be €67 billion, and the Minister of Defence, Sébastien Lecornu, is working on scenarios for increasing the size of the military, which could reach almost €100 billion. What does this mean in practical terms for the armed forces in terms of equipment and manpower, and how long will it take?
École Spéciale Militaire parade in 2023 © Ministère des Armées

It is difficult to give an exhaustive answer in the format of this interview on the number and quality of equipment at the end of the military programming law (LPM) in 2030, especially as the national strategic review, which is to draw up the broad outlines, is still underway. However, we can clearly see the capability efforts we are going to have to make:

  • What the war in Ukraine and, more broadly, the return of strategic competition between the major powers reveal is that equipment that was of little use in asymmetrical conflicts has become indispensable: space capabilities, particularly for observation and broadband communications, control of the seabed, electronic warfare, in-depth fire, ground-to-air defence against all types of aircraft, including drones, and conversely, capabilities for destroying the adversary’s systems of the same type.
  • We are also witnessing the same technological transformation in the conduct of military operations as in economic value chains. Force systems are gradually being reorganised around the processing of data by artificial intelligence. This change has a considerable multiplier effect on the efficiency of military capabilities. It opens up truly unprecedented prospects for the way in which we fight, and therefore large areas of vulnerability for those who fall behind. This is why the Ministry of the Armed Forces recently created an agency specifically dedicated to these issues.
  • Finally, these high-intensity conflicts are characterised by a high level of attrition. So we need more conventional equipment: armour, aircraft and ships. We also need to be able to count on a greater number of human resources who are sufficiently qualified to serve weapons systems that have become digital. The contribution of reservists will play a crucial role.

 

  • Sébastien Lecornu recently declared that “France could be defeated without being invaded”, and that “The main risk for a nuclear power is to see its nuclear deterrent bypassed from below”. From a strategic point of view, how can we decipher these statements by the Minister of Defense?

France is very fortunate to have a deterrent force that it has patiently built up, at the cost of considerable effort, in complete autonomy. It is not dependent on anyone for its maintenance or employment. It is our life insurance against all those who would threaten the very existence of our nation. Having established that it is indispensable, it cannot respond to every threat, because some would not justify the President of the Republic launching a nuclear escalation process. I therefore believe that these are the threats to which the Minister for the Armed Forces is referring when he says that they can hurt us without taking us beyond the threshold of the use of our deterrent.

Volodymyr Zelensky and Sébastien Lecornu in Kiev © Compte X de Volodymyr Zelensky

It is therefore to counter these threats that we must have a military and security tool at the cutting edge of technology. To take an example – totally imaginary – if swarms of drones were to strike simultaneously at several places of power in Paris, it would certainly be a very serious blow to our country’s security, but nuclear weapons would not be of much use to us in this specific case, even if we had identified with certainty who was behind this terrorist attack. You can also imagine combining several kinetic attacks of this type with large-scale hybrid attacks such as cyber actions or large-scale disinformation operations on social networks. Today’s societies and technologies are evolving in ways that make it unnecessary to conquer a country in order to destabilise it and eventually break it up. We need to be aware of this and guard against it.

  • If the United States were to withdraw from NATO or from the defence of Europe, what would be the defence architecture for those countries in Europe that retain sovereignty over their defence? Is the European pillar of NATO the solution or rather an ad hoc coalition of leading countries?

First of all, since the inauguration of the President of the United States, there have been no declarations in favour of a pure and simple withdrawal from NATO, and personally I don’t believe in it. NATO is a military alliance and in the world we live in, being able to count on allies is an asset, even for the United States. On the other hand, it is quite possible that the Americans will say to the Europeans in an even clearer way than hitherto: ‘the defence of Europe is your problem, put the resources into it because we are saving ours for a potential confrontation with China’. We will then have to manage with minimal investment from the Americans, but within the tried and tested framework of cooperation that has existed since 1949. There will certainly be things to adapt, but it won’t be a leap into the unknown.

  • In the event of the United States withdrawing its nuclear umbrella in Europe, the French President has said that he is open to discussions on extending the protection of French nuclear weapons. The idea may seem simple, but putting it into practice would be tricky. Is it feasible?

Without going into detail, the current American nuclear umbrella in Europe is neither designed nor organised in the same way as the French deterrent for strictly national use. It would take a great deal of effort in terms of doctrine and adaptation, as well as consultation between European allies, to put in place the equivalent without American resources. But we are not there yet.

  • Coming back to the war in Ukraine, how do you assess the balance of power on the battlefield?

The balance of power is still in Russia’s favour for the simple reasons of its size, its resources and the support it manages to mobilise from outside. I’m thinking in particular of the reinforcements in equipment and men that have come from North Korea. Having said that, I think that the resilience and dignity of the Ukrainians deserve to be highlighted, even though American support is slipping away without being fully compensated for by European efforts.

Experimental leadership courses continue at the National Army Academy © Ukrainian Ministry of Defense
  • A ceasefire is on the agenda in Ukraine, but how can it be guaranteed? Maps are even circulating showing the presence of French and British troops. But Vladimir Putin doesn’t want that. What are the possible scenarios for guaranteeing a ceasefire, if not a peace agreement?

Russia knows very well that if Western troops are stationed on Ukrainian territory, this will considerably complicate its plans to destabilise the part of Ukraine that it does not already control. It would certainly require major concessions in other respects for it to finally accept this scenario. Unless the United States resolves to impose it by also committing itself to providing security guarantees for the ceasefire. I suppose that these are the issues that are at the heart of the intense negotiations taking place at the moment.

  • Recent polls show (Odoxa) that 3 out of 4 French people are ready to support a rearmament effort and another (Opinion Way) that 50% of 18 to 30 year olds are ready to join the army in the event of a conflict threatening our country. What do you think of public opinion on this subject?

The French are perfectly aware of what is at stake and they certainly remember General de Gaulle’s quote: ‘Defence is the first duty of a state and it cannot fail to fulfil it without destroying itself’. Young French people are much more aware of security issues than previous generations, and what’s more, they are interested in these subjects because they make sense. I find this survey rather reassuring, even if we can also wonder about the attitude of the 50% who will not want to answer the country’s call. This is the point that needs to be worked on without delay, because if Ukraine is still standing after three years of war, it is largely due to the maintenance of its national cohesion.

  • How will the world be restructured, with the return of neo-empires, nation-states and ad hoc coalitions in a context where the West is divided between the United States and Europe?

There is no doubt that there is an imperial reflex in the world today, not to say an imperialist reflex. However, this does not mean that all is lost for those who do not suffer from this pruritus. We have entered a period of great change, and the cards can be reshuffled very quickly. There will be room for pragmatic countries that are confident in their talents and have rid themselves of the shackles that restrict energies. To achieve this, however, we must be prepared to change our agenda and accept the balance of power.

Reduced aid to war-torn Gaza © UNRWA
  • More than 50,000 people have died in Gaza, most of them civilians, and many infrastructures have been targeted and destroyed (hospitals, drinking water stations, electricity stations). First-aid workers, humanitarian aid workers and journalists have been killed. The same is true of Ukraine. Several European countries have just broken their international commitments on the use of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions, which they are going to use again. What will become of the Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law, and will wars consider civilians on the opposing side to be the enemy in the same way as combatants?

We have just lived through a period of several decades of intra-state conflicts in which the conquest of the population to obtain its support, willingly or by force, was the very aim of the conflict. Remember the Somali militias who divided the country into feudal fiefdoms, organising the predation of the population and humanitarian aid.

Unfortunately, the people are always the first victims of war. This is true across the ages, because they are also a means of weakening the will of the adversary. The systematic destruction of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, which is in no way a military objective, is being carried out with the aim of weakening public resistance and getting the government to capitulate.

This is a crime under international treaties, but it does not mean that the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law are disappearing, even if some have decided to disregard them. I’m not convinced that impunity is definitely the rule, and respect for the law is also what differentiates the different protagonists in a conflict.

  • How would you like to conclude?

Firstly, by thanking you for opening up the columns of your hundredth issue to me.

Secondly, I would like to remind you that in these times of great change, humanitarians, like the military, are practitioners who are used to dealing with the reality of conflict. Their advice will be invaluable in building the world of tomorrow.

 

 

Grégoire de Saint-Quentin
Army General (2S)

Grégoire de Saint-Quentin is 63 years old. A graduate of the Ecole Spéciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr, he completed a full course of military studies, leaving in 2020 with the rank of General (2S).

His military career was marked by special forces and joint operations. During the first part of his career, he was involved in numerous operational missions, most often as joint commander. He then commanded the 1st Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment from 2004 to 2006. An auditor of the Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale in 2009, he was appointed general in 2011 and successively commanded the French elements in Senegal, Operation Serval, special operations and finally all joint operations from 2016 to 2020.

In September 2020, he used his operational experience to develop high-tech intelligence and defence capabilities, in particular as Senior Vice President of Preligens.

Since September 2024, he has been Chairman of the ADIT group’s risk management company GEOS. Grégoire de Saint Quentin is Grand Officer of the Légion d’Honneur and Grand Officer of the Ordre National du Mérite.

I invite you to read these interviews and articles published in the edition :