The growing tensions between Armenia and Russia are not driven solely by the issue of European integration. According to political analyst Tigran Grigoryan, the central issue is Russia’s strategic presence in Armenia, particularly the future of the country’s railway system and nuclear power plant.
Grigoryan recalled an interview given by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin, who, despite criticizing the TRIPP project, stated that Russia could benefit from participating in it.
TRIPP and the Struggle Over Strategic Infrastructure
According to the analyst, Russia cannot directly participate in TRIPP because it is an Armenian-American initiative that does not envisage the involvement of third parties, except through separate technical or construction tenders.
In his view, this is one of the main reasons for Moscow’s concern.
If Armenia moves toward transferring the management of its railway system to another operator, Russia could be completely excluded from the process.
Grigoryan also recalled that Galuzin specifically highlighted the issue of control over the South Caucasus Railway, arguing that regional unblocking would not effectively take place without Russian participation.
Moscow Hopes Pressure Will Produce Political Results
The political analyst believes Moscow is attempting to pressure Yerevan on precisely these strategic issues in order to secure outcomes that serve Russian interests.
Reviewing recent publications in the Russian media and comments made by Russian experts covering the South Caucasus, Grigoryan noted that the same narrative is repeatedly promoted by various media outlets and semi-official commentators.
According to that narrative, the restrictions imposed on Armenia, especially in the agricultural sector, have not yet caused serious economic damage but have already triggered growing public dissatisfaction with the Armenian government.
Examples frequently cited include the brief blockade of the Yerevan-Yeraskh highway by residents of the Ararat region and protests by fish farmers outside the government building.
According to Grigoryan, such demonstrations are relatively common in Armenia, yet Russian media portrayed them as evidence of widespread public discontent.
Moscow’s Expectations Have Not Been Met
In Grigoryan’s assessment, this media narrative reflects Moscow’s expectation that large-scale dissatisfaction with the Armenian government would emerge.
The expectation appears to have been that protests would initially develop among agricultural producers and local businesses before being politicized by pro-Russian forces seeking to portray economic difficulties as the consequence of deteriorating relations with Russia.
According to the analyst, economic pressure and possible political instability could then be used to extract concessions from the Armenian authorities on strategic issues, primarily concerning the railway system and the nuclear power plant.
Grigoryan argues that Moscow understands perfectly well that there is currently no genuine agenda for Armenia’s integration into the European Union and that the real purpose of the pressure is to influence decisions concerning strategic infrastructure.
The Pressure Produced the Opposite Effect
According to Grigoryan, Russia miscalculated.
He believes the relatively aggressive pressure applied against Armenia has produced the opposite outcome by strengthening the popularity of the governing political force while weakening the positions of pro-Russian political groups.
The analyst acknowledged that agricultural producers directly affected by the Russian restrictions may indeed be dissatisfied with the Armenian government.
However, he stressed that these groups represent only a relatively small segment of society.
Among the broader public, Grigoryan said, Moscow’s actions have instead reinforced negative attitudes toward Russia, causing the pressure campaign to work against Russia’s own interests.