The ongoing election campaign in Armenia has moved far beyond the framework of ordinary domestic political competition and has turned into an ideological and geopolitical confrontation. This opinion was expressed by political strategist Armen Badalyan.
According to him, clear political poles with fundamentally different visions of Armenia’s future have already emerged during the campaign.
Badalyan says the main competition is unfolding between the ruling “Civil Contract” party and several major opposition forces — Strong Armenia, the Armenia Alliance, Prosperous Armenia, and the National Democratic Pole.
“A territory of asphalt” as a future model
In Badalyan’s view, the current authorities see Armenia not as an independent political subject but as a transit territory.
According to him, the government’s vision of Armenia is that of a “South Caucasus crossroads” whose primary function would be servicing cargo transportation routes.
He argues that under such a scenario the state would lose even the status of a political “object” and would instead become merely a “territory of asphalt” filled with hotels, restaurants, and service infrastructure designed for transit drivers and logistics flows.
In his assessment, such a model deprives Armenia of political subjectivity and reduces its role as an independent regional actor.
The opposition itself is also divided ideologically
Badalyan notes that the opposition camp is not ideologically unified either.
According to him, both Strong Armenia and Prosperous Armenia, despite criticizing the authorities, still largely perceive Armenia as an “object” dependent on external powers.
He says these forces speak about preserving national values, protecting the church, and maintaining social stability, yet they do not offer a model capable of turning Armenia into a fully-fledged political subject.
At the same time, he singles out the Armenia Alliance, arguing that it views the issue of Artsakh not only through a historical or emotional lens but also from a military-political perspective.
Badalyan believes the Artsakh factor previously transformed Armenia into a regional actor with influence and that returning this issue to the political agenda could eventually restore Armenia’s former geopolitical role.
The “poorly presented idea” of the National Democratic Pole
The political strategist also commented separately on the National Democratic Pole.
According to him, the movement has a clear strategic and ideological line but struggles to communicate it effectively to voters.
Badalyan argues that its “technological component is seriously weak,” preventing its ideological platform from being converted into real political capital.
Nevertheless, he does not rule out the possibility that the force could cross the electoral threshold if it improves its campaign strategy.
The government’s scenario has collapsed
In Badalyan’s assessment, the opposition has managed to disrupt the ruling party’s main election strategy, which was built around the contrast between “war and peace.”
According to him, the prime minister’s increasingly harsh and emotionally unbalanced rhetoric in recent days reflects that failure.
Badalyan claims the agenda preferred by the authorities is no longer working and that restoring the previous scenario is now impossible.
He believes the main struggle is no longer simply about votes but about defining Armenia’s future — whether it becomes a transit territory, a conservative “object,” or a genuine regional subject.
These elections are no longer just domestic
Badalyan also addressed the external dimension of the elections.
In his view, the processes taking place in Armenia should be seen as part of the broader confrontation between the West and Russia.
According to him, if the current authorities remain in power, Russia could gradually be pushed out of Armenia — from border control structures to military bases and economic infrastructure.
In this context, he referred to recent government statements about nationalization and increasing state control over Russian-linked structures.
Badalyan believes these elections are of strategic importance for Moscow and are even comparable to the “Battle of Stalingrad.”