The foreign policy handwriting of Nikol Pashinyan and Serzh Sargsyan is identical. They are characterized by a cycle of "adventurism — obsequiousness — adventurism." At the same time, the motivation of both is purely personal.

In order to solve the problem of his pathetic legitimacy, Sargsyan tried to go to the European association, as he was harshly criticized for corruption and election fraud. After being abruptly besieged in Moscow, instead of coming to his senses, he decides to please Moscow and announces his accession to the Customs Union. Serzh Sargsyan would not have looked so much like Pashinyan if, after all this, he had not publicly stated to European officials that he was still ready for association with the EU - he was simply "told that these structures were incompatible."

Pashinyan is doing the same thing: he is adopting a bill on EU membership, at the same time declaring that we are not leaving the EAEU, and at the same time applying to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

If you look at it from the point of view of foreign policy, you might think that Messrs Sargsyan and Pashinyan do not even have a secondary education and do not know about the incompatibility of different economic zones.

And if we consider their actions from the perspective of their desire to gain legitimacy from the outside and stay in power, then we can understand both of them: they have turned the "adventurism — obsequiousness" approach at the expense of the country into the main tool for maintaining their power.