Armenia has found itself in a situation where domestic political developments cannot be fully understood without considering them in the context of the interests and influence of external powers.
According to political scientist and analyst Vigen Hakobyan, especially in the post-election period, Armenia’s political processes are simultaneously influenced by a number of external centers, while the authorities are trying to maintain the safest possible position for themselves between these conflicting interests.
“Armenia has effectively been under external control for a very long time,” Hakobyan said, emphasizing that this influence does not come from a single center.
In his assessment, it is precisely the combination and collision of the interests of different powers that creates an especially complicated situation for Armenia.
According to Hakobyan, although at first glance it may appear that domestic political processes are shaped exclusively by internal agendas, developments in the National Assembly, personnel decisions or the actions of political actors, external influence can continuously be felt behind them.
According to the analyst, this is not only about Russia.
The United States, the bureaucratic structures of the European Union, France, as well as Iran, Turkey and Azerbaijan, all influence Armenia’s domestic political developments.
The interests of these actors do not always coincide, leaving Armenia at their point of intersection.
The analyst recalls that since 2022–2023, assessments have circulated suggesting that Armenia could become an arena for proxy confrontation between major powers and regional states.
In this context, according to him, possible scenarios involving the “Syrianization” and “Cyprusization” of Armenia have also been discussed at various times.
While discussions of “Syrianization” were mainly linked to clashes between the interests of different powers, Hakobyan connects the “Cyprusization” scenario with the issue of regional communications, particularly Turkey’s and Azerbaijan’s interest in the so-called Zangezur Corridor.
In his assessment, this issue has now been given new formulations and, primarily from a PR perspective, is being presented within the framework of TRIPP.
According to Hakobyan, this combination of external influences directly affects Armenia’s domestic political life as well.
In his view, seemingly internal issues that have recently appeared on the authorities’ agenda — the formation of National Assembly committees, personnel decisions and other processes — also involve tensions connected to external factors.
The authorities, in his assessment, are in a position of a “geopolitical split.”
On the one hand, Yerevan is trying to preserve its established relations with the West and fulfill the commitments and promises it has made.
On the other hand, it is attempting to normalize relations to some extent with Turkey, Azerbaijan and Russia.
According to Hakobyan’s interpretation, the purpose of this policy is to buy time.
If the authorities genuinely intend to complete a geopolitical shift, the analyst believes they are trying to do so with as little disruption as possible — primarily in order to preserve their own hold on power.
At the same time, according to Hakobyan, the issue for the authorities is not solely their own political survival.
He believes the authorities are also trying to create conditions in the Republic of Armenia that would allow a certain “comfort zone” to be maintained throughout these changes — both for the country and for the current government.