One of the central themes of Armenia’s recent election campaign was the issue of relations with Russia. By framing political competition around this topic, domestic actors effectively invited Moscow to play the role of an arbiter in the political process. This view was expressed by political analyst Manvel Sargsyan.
According to him, the government had very few strong mobilizing ideas left at its disposal.
For some time, public opinion was influenced by discussions surrounding peace and the threat of a new war, but the effectiveness of that narrative gradually declined.
Sargsyan argues that repeated references to the danger of war no longer had the same impact on society, forcing political actors to seek new methods of mobilization.
Russia Became the Central Theme of the Campaign
According to the political analyst, the focus of the campaign shifted toward attitudes toward Russia.
“The entire pre-election discourse was built around the logic of being either for or against Russia, turning this issue into the main instrument of public mobilization,” he said.
Sargsyan believes that when elections are framed as a choice regarding Russia, Moscow is automatically granted a special role in domestic political affairs.
“If everything in an election is tied to whether you support or oppose Russia, then you are effectively inviting Russia to act as a judge. And that country may respond by saying: ‘Then we will decide,’ because the very framing of the issue gives it an opportunity to impose its will,” he stated.
Russia Moved to the Center of the Political Process
The analyst notes that during the election period Russia issued several strong statements and hinted at possible restrictive measures.
According to him, these developments had a direct impact on public sentiment.
He argues that part of society perceived such actions as indirectly benefiting Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s political force by strengthening mobilization around anti-Russian narratives.
Different Motives, Similar Results
At the same time, Sargsyan does not rule out the possibility that Moscow’s actions reflected elements of its traditional imperial approach to regional politics.
Regardless of the motivation, however, he believes the outcome was the same: Russia became one of the central actors in the electoral process and was widely perceived as an influential participant in Armenia’s domestic political developments.
Can Armenia Function Without Russia?
Asked whether Nikol Pashinyan could continue governing without close cooperation with Russia, Sargsyan said there is no simple answer.
According to him, many experts believe Armenia could gradually create new economic and financial opportunities while finding alternative solutions in energy, transportation, and other strategic sectors.
Military Procurement Offers an Example
As an example, Sargsyan points to developments in the defense sector.
After Russia became unable to meet Armenia’s military procurement needs at previous levels, Yerevan began searching for alternative suppliers, new markets, and ways to strengthen domestic production capabilities.
In his view, a similar strategy could be applied across other sectors of the economy through the development of new trade routes, export destinations, and international partnerships.
Security Challenges Remain Serious
However, the political analyst emphasizes that there remains a significant gap between theoretical possibilities and practical realities.
According to him, Armenia’s security environment continues to be highly complex.
He argues that Azerbaijan has not abandoned its long-term strategic objectives and continues to present new demands to Armenia despite public rhetoric about peace.
Sargsyan also notes that substantial uncertainty still surrounds the issue of regional transportation links, leaving many questions unanswered about the future direction of regional developments.