By Sergey Sukhankin

Armenia’s agreement with the U.S. on cooperation in the civilian nuclear energy may signify a major geopolitical shift in the South Caucasus. Specifically, the deal signals Yerevan’s effort to diversify its energy partnerships and reduce long-standing dependence on Russia, which has dominated Armenia’s nuclear sector since the Soviet era. Moscow`s response to the news has been very critical. Russian experts and policymakers warned about technological risks and questioned the feasibility of U.S.-supplied Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Russian officials and state media frame the initiative as both a security concern and a geopolitical challenge, emphasizing Rosatom’s experience and warning that Armenia could become a testing ground for unproven technologies.

BACKGROUND:

Armenia’s nuclear sector has historically been closely linked to Russia. Armenia’s Nuclear Power Plant at Metsamor, built during the Soviet period, supplies up to 31 percent of the country’s electricity. The plant’s second unit continues operating after modernization programs that extended its lifetime (until 2036) and upgraded its capacity. Due to particularities of the nuclear-producing energy sector, Armenia’s dependence on Russia is complex and multidimensional extending to maintenance of infrastructure, scientific cooperation and other aspects, deepening the dependency on Russian involvement in the country’s energy system. Metsamor’s aging reactors and the country’s growing electricity needs have forced Armenian authorities to consider constructing a replacement facility. Thus, the government began evaluating options for new nuclear capacity examining potential cooperation with multiple countries including Russia, the U.S., China, and South Korea. Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan emphasized that the government would select the partner offering the most competitive combination of price and technology. 

The turning point came in February 2026, when the U.S. and Armenia finalized a civil nuclear cooperation agreement. The agreement establishes the legal framework for exporting nuclear technology to Armenia and opens for U.S. companies to participate in building a new nuclear facility. Furthermore, during a visit to Yerevan (9–10 February), U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance announced that Washington could invest up to US$ 9 billion in Armenia’s nuclear energy sector, which includes long-term fuel and maintenance contracts. 

Small modular reactors are central to Armenia’s new strategy – this was clearly voiced by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in October 2024, when he mentioned that the Armenian government aims to build a small modular reactor as the next nuclear facility. The main competitive advantages of these facilities is that they are viewed as more flexible and potentially cheaper to deploy in smaller energy markets. Armenia’s government believes that over the years the technology could provide a suitable replacement for the Metsamor facility while maintaining the country’s energy security. 

Predictably, the initiative has triggered a strong and quite negative reaction in Moscow: Russia’s state nuclear corporation Rosatom currently plays the key role in Armenia’s nuclear sector and has long been interested in building new reactors in the country. Therefore, the possibility that Armenia might select an American reactor technology threatens Russia’s economic interests and influence in a region traditionally considered part of Moscow’s geopolitical sphere. Russian media outlets have framed the agreement as a major strategic shift in Armenia`s foreign economic policy, and rather unfriendly toward Russia. Commentators in Russian publications argue that Pashinyan’s decision could weaken Russia’s position in the South Caucasus while strengthening US influence in Armenia’s energy infrastructure, establishing a long-term strategic foothold. Clearly, the debate therefore extends beyond energy policy and touches on the broader geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the West.

IMPLICATIONS:

In Russian argumentation, Armenia’s nuclear agreement with the US carries multiple strategic implications where two factors tower above others. First, the deal is described as threatening both Russia’s dominance in Armenia’s energy sector and its global position as a leading actor in nuclear technologies. Rosatom has invested significant resources in maintaining the Metsamor plant and extending its operational life. Russia, primarily through Rosatom and state-backed financing, has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the modernization of Armenia’s nuclear plant, including a US$ 270 million loan, a US$ 30 million grant, and additional upgrade contracts. Russian officials have also repeatedly highlighted Russia`s global leadership in nuclear construction and its extensive experience in operating reactors abroad. In this context, losing the Armenian market to U.S. competitors would represent both an economic loss and a symbolic blow to Russia’s international nuclear industry. 

Second, Russian officials have emphasized safety concerns related to the proposed SMR project. Sergei Shoigu, secretary of Russia’s Security Council, warned that Armenia’s location in a seismically active region makes nuclear construction particularly sensitive. According to Shoigu, Soviet engineers designed Metsamor’s foundation to withstand the devastating 1988 earthquake, demonstrating the reliability of Russian technology. He argued that the introduction of unfamiliar reactor designs could introduce new safety risks that regional governments would have to consider. 

Shoigu also questioned the technological maturity of U.S. SMR designs. He pointed out that the U.S. has yet to complete a fully operational SMR project domestically, suggesting that the technology remains largely untested in practice. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that Armenia could effectively become a testing ground for experimental U.S. nuclear technologies if it proceeds with the project, and that the scale of the proposed US$ 9 billion agreement raises questions about financial risks and long-term feasibility. Safety concerns resonate strongly across the post-Soviet space due to the legacy of major nuclear accidents, most notably the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. The memory of such incidents continues to shape public perceptions of nuclear energy from Belarus to the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Thus, arguments emphasizing nuclear safety, which Russian officials frequently invoke in discussions about Armenia’s potential adoption of small modular reactors, are not merely rhetorical but can find receptive audiences in societies where historical experience has made the risks associated with nuclear technology particularly salient.

Despite these tensions, Armenian officials insist that the decision regarding a new nuclear plant has not yet been finalized and that Yerevan continues to review proposals from multiple partners, including Russia. Armenian authorities have even requested additional technical briefings from Moscow regarding Russian modular reactor technologies, indicating that competition for the project remains open. 

Another factor that could affect a potential U.S.-Armenia nuclear deal is Armenia’s upcoming parliamentary election on June 7. Some Western experts believe that the U.S.-Armenia nuclear agreement would likely be weakened or delayed if Pashinyan is defeated in the elections, however not automatically disbanded. (Pro)Russian experts suggest that an opposition win could sharply change Armenia’s foreign-policy course, improving ties with Moscow. 

The Armenian side clearly understands that the final decision, should it not comply with Russia`s expectations, would have broader geopolitical implications for the country. This has an even more pronounced meaning given that over the past several years political relations between Russia and Armenia have deteriorated as Armenia has sought to diversify its foreign policy and strengthen ties with Western partners. For Russia, the potential loss of influence in Armenia’s nuclear sector represents much more than a commercial setback – it could manifest a broader erosion of Moscow’s role in the South Caucasus at a time when Western countries are expanding their presence in the region and Russia’s influence and posture are eroding.

CONCLUSIONS:

Armenia’s nuclear cooperation agreement with the U.S. marks a potentially transformative moment in the geopolitics of the South Caucasus. While the project remains at an early stage and Armenia continues to evaluate competing proposals, the possibility that U.S. companies could build the country’s next nuclear reactor has already triggered strong negative reactions in Moscow. Russian officials have criticized the proposal on technical, economic, security and geopolitical grounds, emphasizing safety concerns and highlighting Rosatom’s experience in nuclear construction. At the same time, Russian media portray the initiative as part of a broader Western strategy to expand influence in Armenia and weaken Russia’s traditional role in the region, in strategic proximity of southern Russia. For Armenia, the nuclear agreement represents an effort to diversify strategic partnerships and strengthen energy independence. Yet the decision also clearly carries risks, including exacerbated political friction with Russia. Ultimately, the competition over Armenia’s nuclear future illustrates the intensifying geopolitical rivalry shaping the South Caucasus. The outcome of this contest will influence not only Armenia’s energy security but also the balance of power in a region where infrastructure, economics, and geopolitics remain deeply intertwined.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Dr. Sergey Sukhankin is a Senior Fellow at the Jamestown Foundation and the Saratoga Foundation (both Washington DC) and a Fellow at the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network (Canada). He teaches international business at MacEwan School of Business (Edmonton, Canada). Currently he is a postdoctoral fellow at the Canadian Maritime Security Network (CMSN).

By Laura Thornton

Armenians head to the polls on June 7 to elect all 101 members of parliament at a time of critical regional and geopolitical consequences. Following the 2018 Velvet Revolution and Nagorno-Karabakh war, the country has embarked on a new path of democratic reform and foreign policy alignments. Previously dependent on Russia for security guarantees and economic stability, the government of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is now forging new ties with the European Union (EU) and United States, while redefining the country’s relationship with both Azerbaijan and Turkey. The election presents a choice beyond minor policy options but a vision for the country’s governance and geopolitical alignment. Given the stakes, both domestic and foreign actors have intensified their tactics, manipulating existing vulnerabilities, and present serious threats to the election process.

BACKGROUND:

The election is taking place at a historic pivot point for Armenia’s positioning in the region and beyond. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Armenia has tied to Russia militarily, economically, and ideologically. Armenia has been part of the Eurasian Economic Union, a Russian initiative to ensure economic integration, and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a Russian-led security alliance. Russia has been Armenia’s largest supplier of military aid and key trading partner. Russia also owns key infrastructure in Armenia, including railways and telecommunications. However, Russia’s failure to defend Armenia during the 2020 and 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh conflicts damaged ties between the two states, with Yerevan suspending its participation in the CSTO and demanding the removal of Russian border troops. 

While turning away from Russia, the government has pursued European Union (EU) accession and signed a framework to implement the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), which aims to establish a transit route in the south Caucasus. Further, regional calculations have dramatically changed, paving the way for a redefined relationship with both Azerbaijan and Turkey, with a peace agreement being formed with the former and new border and trade discussions with the latter. 

Two main opposition blocs, which are closely tied to Russia, are challenging the ruling Civil Contract party of Pashinyan. The ruling party is running on “peace,” which it defines as continuing the negotiations with Azerbaijan and building closer ties with the EU and U.S. The opposition blocs oppose the government’s peace agreement, accuse the government of being under Azerbaijani and Turkish control, and say EU goals are unrealistic.

While the political contest does not fall along neat “pro-West vs. pro-Russian” divides as in some frontline democracies, and none of the viable parties embraces a full break from Russia (mindful that the plurality of Armenians believe Russia is the country’s most important political partner), the parties do differ significantly on the nature of the relationship. The Kremlin has taken note and activated its hybrid warfare playbook, employed in Georgia, Moldova, and other democracies, to defeat the ruling party.  

The political landscape is also shaped by a fierce conflict between the government and Church leaders. Church leaders – headed by Karekin II, the Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians – accuse the Pashinyan government of “losing” the war in Nagorno-Karabakh and have called for the Prime Minister’s resignation. In turn, the government has prosecuted several bishops on charges ranging from “calling for a coup” to drug charges, prosecutions which many independent groups believe lack strong evidence. Opposition parties have seized on this issue, criticizing the government and defending the Church.

IMPLICATIONS:

Given the partisan divergence on the country’s foreign policy orientation, the geopolitical stakes in the election are high, activating malign actors. The Kremlin sees clearly the threat of the ruling Civil Contract, which has pledged more decoupling from Russia and greater alignment with Europe and the U.S. While recently on a pre-election assessment mission to Yerevan, government officials, civil society representatives, diplomats, and observers described Russia’s hybrid warfare in the country as “unprecedented.” There was also widespread agreement that the country was not adequately prepared for the threat, made worse by the elimination of USAID and its support in bolstering the country’s defenses.

Information is central to the Kremlin’s strategy. Russia dominates the airwaves, with Russian channels freely broadcast on national television, and social media, where there are few regulations. Narratives focus on Armenia’s need for Russian security, and how the Pashinyan government has ceded sovereignty to Azerbaijan, and for the Russian market. Emphasis is on Armenia as part of Russia’s sphere of influence. Disinformation about elections, institutions, and democracy is prevalent, particularly sowing distrust in the integrity of the upcoming election. Russian information campaigns bolster opposition talking points, such as those accusing the government of suppressing speech and political prosecutions.   

The Kremlin has infiltrated charities, movements, and foundations, such as the “Foundation to Battle Injustice,” established by the late Wagner Head Yevgeniy Prigozhin. Russia and Armenian Church leaders are also in lockstep, each amplifying the other’s attacks on the government, messaging on traditional values, and criticism of Western institutions. Russia has also mobilized the Armenian diaspora to vote in previous elections, paying for transport and vote buying. Russian banks and businesses operate throughout the country making financing of influence operations and proxies easy. 

It is widely acknowledged in Yerevan that the country is not adequately prepared to defend against this threat. Government bodies are poorly resourced and often lack the mandate, technology, and tools to investigate or conduct counter efforts. There are also legal loopholes, such as the lack of regulation on third parties, which frequently engage in political activity. Civil society groups, research institutes, and independent media – central to building resilience to hybrid threats – are also poorly resourced, particularly since the elimination of USAID.

Electoral victory for the main opposition blocs, the beneficiaries of Russian influence, would signify a reversal on the country’s current trajectory. Russian citizen Samvel Karapetyan, owner of the Russian Tashir Group, founded the opposition Strong Armenia. The other main opposition bloc, Armenia Alliance, is led by former President Robert Kocharyan who serves on the board of directors for Sistema PJSFC, one of Russia’s largest investment companies. In addition to their obvious Russian ties, the parties reject Pashinyan’s peace agreement (and do not offer a clear alternative), do not approve of TRIPP, and believe Armenia is “not ready” for the EU. 

According to recent polling, Civil Contract is polling at 24 percent, Strong Armenia at nine percent, and everyone else below the threshold. This polling also shows the majority of support for the ruling party comes from older (56+) and more urban citizens. Importantly, those who select Civil Contract are far more likely to identify as “pro-Western” (73 percent) while those who support Strong Armenia believe the country’s policy should be “pro-Russian” (71 percent).

CONCLUSIONS:

Armenia’s election could lead to the continuation of the country’s new foreign alignment course, forging new economic and security relationships and exerting greater freedom from Russian control. Alternatively, the country could abandon this direction, taking a closer path to that of neighboring Georgia, which has alienated the West and forged closer ties with Russia, China, and Iran. At a time of upheaval and uncertainty in the region, a strong alliance of pro-Russian governments along the vertical axis from Moscow to Tehran would have significant consequences. It could block Western interests in and access to the region and beyond, lead to new destabilization between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and embolden Russia to act elsewhere. 

Enhanced U.S. and European support would help fortify the elections from malign actors through increased technical assistance, intelligence, financing, and training to Armenian partners.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Laura Thornton has spent more than 30 years in the democracy, governance, and security space both as a practitioner and policy and advocacy expert. She lived more than two decades in Asia and the former Soviet Union and has held positions at the McCain Institute, the German Marshall Fund, International IDEA, and the National Democratic Institute.

By Ebru Akgün

Armenia is currently navigating its most significant geopolitical shift since its independence in 1991. The collapse of the traditional security architecture, which was built on the pillar of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), has forced Yerevan to embark on a perilous journey of "sovereign recalibration." By embracing Western civilian security instruments—most notably the European Union Monitoring Mission in Armenia (EUMA)—while simultaneously hosting legacy Russian military infrastructure, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s administration has adopted a high-stakes "dual-track" strategy. However, this hedging mechanism is reaching its structural exhaustion. As regional geopolitics shift toward binary alignments and the South Caucasus becomes a primary theater for broader EU-Russia competition, Armenia's tactical flexibility is increasingly challenged by the reality of asymmetric pressures.

BACKGROUND:

​The central challenge for Armenia’s transition is the "security guarantee deficit." While Yerevan has successfully frozen its participation in the CSTO, citing the alliance’s failure to respond to incursions into Armenian sovereign territory in 2021 and 2022, it has not yet secured a formal military alternative. The Western response, though diplomatically robust, remains focused on "soft power" and monitoring rather than "hard power" defense obligations.

​The EUMA's mandate has been extended until 2028, providing a layer of "visibility-based deterrence." However, from a military perspective, a civilian mission cannot function as a permanent shield. Unlike the formal mutual defense obligations found in Article 4 of the CSTO treaty—which Armenia now views as a "failed promise"—the EU mission carries no legal mandate to intervene in the event of an armed conflict. The presence of European monitors on the border with Azerbaijan may increase the political cost of escalation, but it does not provide the physical protection necessary to stop an offensive.

​For Western policymakers, Armenia serves as a critical case study of the limits of small-state hedging under asymmetric pressure. The lack of a "hard" security partner leaves Yerevan in a state of strategic ambiguity. While France and the United States have increased their security assistance, these relationships are characterized by bilateral cooperation agreements rather than mutual defense pacts. This gap between monitoring and defense creates a period of strategic vulnerability that regional actors could exploit, especially if the diplomatic cost of military escalation is perceived as manageable by Baku or Moscow.

​A critical but often under-analyzed component of Armenia’s new security architecture is its integration into Western-backed transit networks, specifically the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) corridor. Launched as a flagship initiative to decouple the South Caucasus from Russian and Iranian monopolies, the TRIPP implementation framework signed in early 2026 aims to integrate Armenia into a Western-secured transit network.

​The TRIPP initiative seeks to link Azerbaijan with its Nakhchivan exclave through Armenian territory (specifically the Syunik province) under Armenian sovereign and customs control. By promoting this "Crossroads of Peace" vision, the United States is attempting to create a vested economic interest in Armenia’s territorial integrity. If major Western corporations and U.S.-backed contractors become primary stakeholders in Armenia’s infrastructure, the logic follows that Washington will have a more explicit incentive to ensure the region's stability.

​However, the TRIPP corridor brings its own set of risks. While it offers an economic lifeline and a potential implicit security shield, it places Armenia at the heart of a "corridor war" between the West, Russia, and Iran. Tehran remains deeply wary of any increased Western presence in Syunik, which it views as its "red line" for northern connectivity. Meanwhile, Moscow views any corridor not controlled by its own FSB border guards as a violation of the November 2020 ceasefire arrangements. Therefore, the TRIPP corridor is as much a security challenge as it is an opportunity, requiring Armenia to balance American ambitions against the immediate geographical realities of its neighbors.

​Armenia’s military modernization efforts represent another pillar of its diversification strategy. Recent contracts for French GM200 radar systems and Mistral anti-air missiles, alongside the procurement of Indian Akash-1S missile systems and Pinaka rockets, mark a decisive break from the decades-long monopoly of the Russian defense industry.

​However, "buying Western" does not automatically translate into "Western security." Armenia faces an immense technical challenge known as the "interoperability trap." The nation’s current command-and-control (C2) architecture is built on Soviet-legacy systems that are historically transparent to Russian military intelligence. Integrating NATO-standard French radars or high-tech Indian artillery into this legacy environment is not just a logistical hurdle; it is a profound security risk.

​Without an entirely independent and secure C2 network—a project that would require billions of dollars and years of specialized training—Armenia’s new hardware remains vulnerable to electronic jamming or data interception by legacy Russian systems. Furthermore, the logistical chain for these Western systems is fragile. Unlike Russian equipment, which is supported by established rail links, Western hardware must be transported through Georgia’s ports or via complex Iranian routes, making the supply chain vulnerable to external political pressures. This technical sovereignty is the missing link in Armenia's military transition.

​The strategic direction of Armenia will face its ultimate domestic test in the upcoming June 7, 2026 parliamentary elections. These polls will function as a definitive referendum on the "Western pivot" and the "Fourth Republic" vision proposed by the Pashinyan administration. Public opinion in Armenia is currently characterized by "ambiguity fatigue." While trust in Western institutions has surged, a significant portion of the population remains skeptical that monitoring missions and "economic corridors" like TRIPP can replace the hard security guarantees once expected from Russia.

​The 2026 elections will be fought on two fronts: economic prosperity and national survival. If the government cannot demonstrate that its pivot has brought tangible security improvements or significant economic relief through projects like TRIPP before the elections, the opposition—likely backed by Russian narratives of "restoring traditional ties for safety"—may gain significant traction. The outcome of the 2026 polls will determine whether Armenia continues its pursuit of sovereignty through Western integration or is forced into a strategic reversal. The memory of the 2020 and 2023 conflicts looms large, and the electorate's patience for "strategic patience" is wearing thin.

IMPLICATIONS:

​Despite the rhetoric of "de-coupling," the physical and economic reality of Russian influence in Armenia remains a formidable obstacle. Russia still owns a majority of Armenia’s natural gas infrastructure through Gazprom Armenia and plays a critical role in the operation of the Metsamor nuclear power plant. To counter this, the European Union has pledged $500 million to enhance Armenia’s energy security and diversification, but the transition will take years.

​This economic asymmetry gives Moscow a "soft-kill" capability. The Kremlin does not need to launch a military intervention to destabilize Armenia; it can achieve similar results through "technical" border closures at the Lars crossing, energy price hikes, or logistical sabotage. The withdrawal of Russian FSB border guards from Zvartnots Airport was a symbolic victory, but Russian units still maintain a presence along the borders with Turkey and Iran. Any move that Moscow perceives as an "over-pivot" could trigger a devastating economic retaliation that the Armenian state is currently ill-equipped to handle.

​In this complex chess game, the role of Iran cannot be ignored. Tehran views the Syunik province as its essential gateway to the north. Any implementation of corridors—whether TRIPP or the Russian-backed Zangezur version—that changes the border status or introduces NATO-linked security actors is considered a "red line" by Iran. Armenia must navigate its pivot toward the West without alienating its southern neighbor, which remains its only other physical gateway to the world. This necessitates a delicate balance: engaging with the U.S. on TRIPP while reassuring Tehran that Armenia’s sovereign control over the route remains absolute and non-negotiable.

CONCLUSIONS:

Armenia is currently in a race against time. The dual-track strategy has provided essential short-term breathing room, allowing the state to begin the slow process of military modernization and diplomatic diversification. However, as the 2026 elections approach and the regional environment becomes more binary, the luxury of ambiguity is disappearing.

​For Armenia to survive as a sovereign actor, it must bridge the gap between "monitoring" and "defense." This requires moving beyond symbolic gestures toward a robust institutional framework that accounts for the state’s structural vulnerabilities. The TRIPP corridor and Western arms contracts are steps in the right direction, but they are not panaceas. Ultimately, Armenia’s ability to sustain its independence will depend on whether its Western partners are willing to provide actionable security pathways that go beyond binoculars and political statements. In a region where hard power still dictates the terms of sovereignty, Armenia’s "dual-track" must eventually find a single, solid, and defensible destination.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Ebru Akgün is an independent researcher specializing in the South Caucasus, regional security architecture, and transportation corridors. Her work focuses on the intersection of infrastructure development, military modernization, and geopolitical risk analysis in Eurasia. She actively monitors the evolving dynamics between Armenia, its neighbors, and global power enters. You can follow her latest research and professional updates via http://linkedin.com/in/ebruakgun

By Davit Gasparyan

Escalating tensions between the Armenian government and senior figures within the Armenian Apostolic Church are more than a domestic institutional dispute. The ongoing confrontation demonstrates Armenia’s broader geopolitical recalibration and growing concerns within Yerevan that Russian influence continues to operate through religious and cultural networks. While the Armenian Apostolic Church remains one of the country’s most trusted and historically significant institutions, the political behavior of certain ecclesiastical elites has intensified debates over sovereignty, national security, and foreign interference. The dispute is an example of how religious institutions across Russia’s neighboring countries can become entangled in geopolitical competition, particularly amid Armenia’s evolving foreign policy orientation and Russia’s continued reliance on soft power mechanisms.

BACKGROUND:

Relations between the Armenian government and the Armenian Apostolic Church have deteriorated significantly in recent years and particularly recent months, with public disagreements increasingly centered on Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s allegations of corruption, political interference, and questions surrounding the Church’s institutional accountability. While these tensions have often been portrayed as domestic disputes over governance and reform, Armenian political leadership has also framed the issue in broader geopolitical terms.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has explicitly linked his government’s concerns regarding church leadership to national security considerations. During a parliamentary question-and-answer session, Pashinyan stated that he “does not need a Catholicos who will obey him,” but rather one who “will not obey a senior lieutenant of a foreign special service” or report to foreign intelligence actors. Such remarks suggest that the Armenian government views elements within church leadership as potential conduits for external political influence rather than solely domestic institutional actors.

The Armenian Apostolic Church occupies a uniquely influential position in Armenian society. For centuries, it has served as a pillar of national identity, preserving Armenian cultural, linguistic, and spiritual continuity through periods of foreign domination, including Ottoman and Soviet rule. Public trust in the Church remains consistently high, making it one of the country’s most respected institutions according to the Caucasus Barometer, outperforming political parties and figures. This legitimacy, however, also renders the Church a powerful societal actor vulnerable to political instrumentalization.

Historically, segments of the Church’s senior leadership have maintained close institutional and symbolic ties with the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian state. These connections reflect broader historical patterns in which former Armenian political elites aligned closely with Moscow during Armenia’s post-Soviet transition and subsequent security dependence on Russia. Such relationships have periodically reinforced Russia’s ideological narratives across the region.

These ties became particularly visible following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That year, Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II received a Russian state honor from President Vladimir Putin, clearly signaling the continuing closeness between Armenian and Russian religious leadership. More controversially, Archbishop Ezras (Nersisyan), head of the Russian Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church and brother of Garegin II, publicly blessed the Arbat Battalion in 2023, a military unit that includes ethnic Armenians associated with Russia’s war effort in Ukraine. The act carried strong symbolic significance, depicting how certain church elites have engaged in activities aligning with and supporting Russia’s wartime mobilization narratives against Ukraine. Pashinyan later alleged in 2025 that Archbishop Ezras was recruited by the KGB.

Russian religious and political actors have also reacted sharply to Armenian government criticism of church leadership. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church have condemned perceived state interference in ecclesiastical affairs, portraying Armenian government actions as part of broader efforts to undermine traditional spiritual institutions. Russian political commentators and politicians, including Sergei Lavrov, have similarly framed Armenian reform efforts as destabilizing and influenced by Western political agendas.

The dispute has extended beyond Armenia’s borders into Russian streets. Russian authorities have permitted Armenian diaspora communities to mobilize publicly around disputes between the Armenian government and church leadership and to publicly criticize Pashinyan’s actions. These developments show how the Russian regime has allowed and implicitly endorsed such attacks on Pashinyan as such demonstrations would require extensive scrutiny and approval by Russian authorities.

IMPLICATIONS:

The confrontation between the Armenian government and segments of church leadership reflects a broader geopolitical struggle over Russia’s influence within Armenian society. Religious institutions have historically served as important channels of Russian soft power across the post-Soviet region, enabling Moscow to shape political narratives, reinforce cultural alignment, and maintain influence even where formal political leverage declines.

Russia’s use of religious networks as instruments of influence has been particularly evident in Ukraine. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent full-scale invasion in 2022, tensions between Ukrainian authorities and Moscow-affiliated religious structures intensified. Kyiv’s eventual support for the establishment of an independent Orthodox Church reflected concerns that religious institutions could function as vehicles for Russian political influence and intelligence activity. Similar dynamics have been observed in Moldova, where Moscow-aligned religious organizations have maintained strong societal influence and occasionally reinforced pro-Russian political narratives. In Georgia, Russian-linked religious messaging has also been used to amplify conservative social discourse and skepticism toward Western integration.

Armenia’s current church-state tensions appear to follow comparable patterns. Pashinyan’s government has increasingly pursued foreign policy diversification, strengthening relations with the EU, the U.S., and regional partners while reducing reliance on Russian security and economic guarantees. These shifts have heightened the Armenian leadership’s sensitivity to domestic institutions perceived as linked to Moscow’s influence infrastructure.

Pashinyan has suggested that segments of church leadership have been used in forms of “hybrid warfare” targeting Armenian sovereignty. While such claims remain politically and legally contested and strongly rejected by church representatives, they highlight the degree to which religious institutions have become intertwined with national security discourse in Armenia. The framing reflects broader concerns within Armenian political circles that Russian influence persists through societal and cultural networks even as formal bilateral relations undergo strain.

The dispute also carries significant domestic political implications. Armenia’s 2026 parliamentary elections are expected to take place amid heightened geopolitical competition. Russia has historically demonstrated interest in influencing Armenian electoral processes and public discourse and there are reports that it already has commenced influence operations. Given the Armenian Apostolic Church’s deep societal legitimacy, internal church disputes could become politically mobilized, shaping electoral narratives and public perceptions of government legitimacy.

At the same time, aggressive state action against church leadership risks generating backlash among segments of Armenian society that view the Church as inseparable from national identity. Balancing institutional reform with respect for religious tradition will remain a very delicate political challenge for Armenian authorities. Certain Western human rights and religious organizations have already criticized the Pashinyan regime for its targeted crackdown on Armenian church members.

More broadly, Armenia’s experience demonstrates how religious institutions across Eurasia continue to operate at the intersection of identity, politics, and geopolitical competition. As Russia’s conventional political leverage in parts of the post-Soviet space declines, Moscow has increasingly relied on cultural and religious networks to preserve influence. Armenia’s internal church-state confrontation demonstrates how such networks can become focal points of broader geopolitical realignment.

CONCLUSIONS:

The escalating conflict between the Armenian government and senior figures within the Armenian Apostolic Church should be understood as both a domestic institutional dispute and a manifestation of broader geopolitical transformation. While the Church remains a foundational pillar of Armenian identity and social cohesion, the political, pro-Russian alignment of certain ecclesiastical elites has contributed to growing concerns regarding foreign influence.

Pashinyan’s confrontation with church leadership reflects Armenia’s efforts to redefine its geopolitical orientation and reduce Russian soft power penetration within Armenian society. The outcome of this struggle will likely influence not only Armenia’s internal political stability but also its future strategic alignment. As Armenia navigates a changing regional security environment on the eve of its 2026 Parliamentary elections, the interaction between religious authority, national identity, and external geopolitical competition will remain a critical factor shaping the country’s trajectory.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Davit Gasparyan researches security dynamics in the South Caucasus and Russia’s regional strategy. He conducts research with the Institute for Security and Analysis and previously served as a Russia researcher at the Institute for the Study of War, and has worked with the Carnegie Endowment and Caucasus Watch.

By Stephen Blank

While Central Asian cohesion and regional cooperation grow; the South Caucasus is fragmenting. This process increasingly affects the nature and scope of regional interactions with key international actors. Russian influence has declined precipitously in Armenia, which is turning to the West, and Azerbaijan, which is expanding its circle of partners. However, in Georgia the state increasingly resembles Russia in its autocratic and legal structure and thus its state practices.

BACKGROUND:

Writing in 2024, the Azeri scholar Gulshan Pashayeva observed that a defining feature of the Caucasus was its fragmentation. This fragmentation is deepening and in effect, relationships between the South Caucasus and key external actors have quickly grown and assumed new shapes in 2025. Georgia’s dependence on Russia has grown, whereas Russian influence in Armenia and Azerbaijan has visibly declined as these states are turning to Washington and Europe. 

Georgia is paying the supreme price of colonial status as it over time loses territory to Russia as both South Ossetia and Abkhazia virtually included in the Russian Federation. The Russian-driven borderization whereby Russian or pro-Russian forces either overtly or surreptitiously move border posts demarcating Russian-controlled from Georgian territories to expand Russia’s holdings occurs with impunity.

The mounting discord between the Georgian government and the EU also exemplifies Georgia’s regression. Georgia’s government, possibly at Moscow’s behest, is trampling upon processes necessary for Georgian admission into the EU and frustrating both Brussels’ conditions and the continuing support for EU membership among a majority of the Georgian population. 

Armenia’s government is implementing a program of democratic reform and ultimate membership in the EU while striving to make a conclusive peace with Azerbaijan and normalize ties to Turkey despite staunch resistance by domestic, diasporic elements, the Church and Russian influencers. None of these groups supports peace and many of them, including Russia, fear democratization as signaling a decisive political defeat at home as well as a threat to Russia. It is no surprise that the Church with Russian backing emerged as the leader of an attempted coup in 2025 to replicate Russia’s success in Georgia and reverse Yerevan’s turn to the West.

Azerbaijan’s case is even more striking. Beyond its military-diplomatic success in forging an alliance with Turkey and partnership with Israel to strengthen its military capability, it neutralized Russian support for Armenia while improving ties with key European states and the U.S. The Trump Administration has now built a permanent monument to its military-economic presence in the Caucasus, namely the Trump International Road for Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP). This project brings Washington into the Caucasus as a permanent player and checks Iranian threats to Azerbaijan and links to Armenia, while giving Yerevan a tangible reward for its pro-Western and anti-Russian policies. Meanwhile, Russia’s downing of an Azerbaijani airplane in 2024 and attacks on Azerbaijani residents in Russia have generated enormous resentment in Azerbaijan. 

IMPLICATIONS:

The Caucasus has become a battleground where the great powers and their favored local governments are not only on opposite sides, but where these powers’ rivalry also spills over into trade routes. The TRIPP has duly triggered Georgian apprehension since that project’s inauguration may well push aside Georgia as a preferred partner in the Middle Corridor project that ties together China, Central Asia, and ultimately Europe. But the significance of TRIPP far transcends its potential impact upon Georgia.

This project is only the latest manifestation of the declining Russian influence in the Caucasus and the parallel ensuing fragmentation of the region. While Moscow still holds many levers of influence and has no scruples about using them; they are fewer, less potent than before, and Russia faces a greater and more sustained foreign presence in the Caucasus than at any time since the disintegration of the USSR. Neither is this foreign influence strictly economic as in China’s case and as seen in its sponsorship of the Middle Corridor trade and transportation route through Azerbaijan that bypasses Russia. Türkiye’s alliance with Azerbaijan is of an explicitly military nature that provides an enduring supply of weapons, training, and presumably logistical and intelligence support for Azerbaijan. Türkiye also buttresses this support by providing the primary terminus for Azerbaijan’s increasing energy exports to Europe. Beyond these increasingly deep-rooted connections to Azerbaijan, through the Organization of Turkic States Türkiye now also has an institutional base for enduring outreach to Central Asia and the provision of all manner of military and economic ties to that region. 

Azerbaijan is also increasingly tied to the Middle East through its long-running defense and economic ties to Israel, their mutual collaboration against Iran and its membership in both the Abraham Accords and President Trump’s Board of Peace. Likewise, the EU and Azerbaijan have embarked upon a mutually rewarding series of ties independent of Russian influence and also primarily based on Azerbaijani energy exports in return for EU investment and political support.

Moreover, the advent of the TRIPP has launched what looks like a sustained U.S. presence in the Caucasus. This project is taking physical shape and Vice-President Vance’s visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan demonstrates that sustained interest. Under this project, “American companies could develop railways, roads, and pipelines linking Azerbaijan proper to its Nakhchivan exclave via a corridor through the south of Armenia’s Syunik Province.” Since Azerbaijan is now providing Armenia with energy, a formal peace treaty terminating the state of war over Nagorno-Karabakh under U.S. auspices seems likely. Beyond those signs of U.S. influence, President Trump has just stated that Vance’s tour will, “strengthen our strategic partnership with Azerbaijan, a beautiful Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation with Armenia, Deals for our Great Semiconductor Makers, and the sale of Made in the U.S.A. Defense Equipment, such as body armor and boats, and more, to Azerbaijan.” If this lasting multi-domain U.S. presence materializes, it will represent a major blow to Russian ambitions but also codify the fragmentation of the Caucasus and exclude Georgia from the growing and long-term international competition in the region for a long time to come.

CONCLUSIONS:

Russia certainly still has cards to play. It has a long-term military base at Gyumri, Armenia, and well-established connections among the Armenian opposition that is both unreconciled to the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh and to the Pashinyan government’s democratizing reforms and efforts to join the EU. Russia also has substantial economic connections to Georgia and what looks like a secure base of influence in Georgia’s government. 

Nevertheless, it is a declining power economically if not militarily and cannot stop the rising foreign presence in the Caucasus. Indeed, it depends on trade coming from Armenia and Central Assia to circumvent Western sanctions and access vital Western goods. Iran, whose back is to the wall due to combined U.S., Israeli, and European military-economic pressure, cannot bail it out. Nor will China, the primary sponsor of the Middle Corridor, rescue it in the Caucasus. Despite the Russo-Chinese “no-limits” partnership, Beijing has never lifted a finger to allow Russia to become a viable economic competitor across Eurasia or regarding inter-continental trade, transport, and connectivity issues.

Therefore, the fragmentation of the South Caucasus and the heightened presence of competing major international actors is likely to continue. Central Asian states, in contrast, forge ahead with mounting cohesion and collaboration. Indeed, those states, recognizing Azerbaijan’s critical geographic position and rising heft, have now included it in what used to be the 5+1 relationship with Washington, transforming it into a 6+1 formation. This development will also contribute to regional fragmentation. Azerbaijan is increasingly a power whose perspectives must embrace Washington, Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia, not just the Caucasus.

The ethnopolitical rivalries that made the Caucasus a zone of conflict for a generation after 1991 may, however, be coming to an end as the new ties between Baku and Yerevan and greater foreign connections show. To the extent that Georgia can be helped to resolve its ethnic and other domestic cleavages that Russia continues to exploit, it may become possible for the South Caucasus to emulate the discernible regional cooperation now appearing in Central Asia.

That outcome would be to the benefit of the entire Caucasus as well as to its neighbors and interlocutors. While disappointing to Moscow, its regional clients and those “dead-enders” who wish to rekindle the fires of ethnic conflict, that way has been tried and founds wanting in the balance.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Stephen Blank is a Senior Fellow with the Foreign Policy Research Institute (www.fpri.org.)