Foreign Influence and Political Forces in Armenia

543
0

As elections approach in Armenia, the political landscape becomes increasingly filled with discussions about whether different political forces are under the influence of various external political centers. This is, in some sense, a natural and expected phenomenon, since in any country, especially in small states, global actors consistently have interests, and these interests are often expressed through local political forces that align with their agendas.

As a result, in recent days a rather heated debate has emerged over which political forces in Armenia are considered pro-Russian and which are pro-Western. These classifications are often used as a tool to influence public opinion and steer voters’ choices in a certain direction.

For example, the ruling party sometimes emphasizes that certain opposition forces have closer ties or influence from Russia, while presenting its own political course as more pro-European and oriented toward integration with the West. Conversely, the opposition often makes similar claims in the opposite direction, accusing the authorities of excessive dependence on different external powers or of serving foreign agendas.

In reality, such labeling is a common tool of political communication, but it does not always provide a complete or objective picture of the actual foreign policy positions of each political force. As a result, certain perceptions have indeed been formed among Armenian voters, and the authorities have managed to promote the narrative that in the event of their defeat, Armenia would become a Russian governorate. The opposition advances the narrative that in the case of the ruling party’s re-election, Armenia would turn into a Turkish vilayet.

However, the reality is naturally not as simple as it is being presented. The main share of responsibility here should be placed on the authorities, because ultimately it is the government that is responsible for forming an atmosphere of public unity and tolerance, which in the case of Armenia, does not currently exist.

In the case of the opposition, in recent years it has failed to properly engage with the authorities and political forces of the European Union and the United States. As a result, it essentially does not receive support from EU and Western players. This is, in general, the fault of the opposition, and there is no need to go deeper into this issue.

Get the Mirror in your inbox:

It is extremely important to understand how the authorities position themselves as a pro-Western political force, oriented toward Europe, supporting European integration and deepening relations with Europe, while periodically accusing Russia of conducting hybrid warfare against Armenia and its authorities. However, the reality is that since 2018, the Armenian authorities have not taken any serious steps against Russia’s vital interests in the South Caucasus and Armenia or harming Russia.

They have not seriously moved away from the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) or the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). A Russian military base continues to be present in Armenia. The Armenian nuclear power plant, which is under Russian control, continues to operate in Armenia. Russia remains Armenia’s largest trade partner, and trade turnover reaches billions of dollars annually. At the same time Russia hosts the biggest Armenian diaspora in the world, which is almost equal to the current population of Armenia.

Accordingly, hopes that Armenia’s primary goal is to detach itself from Russian influence and move toward Europe are, at the very least, not consistent with reality, and such developments cannot take place given the abovementioned circumstances. The narratives introduced into the domestic political debate by the authorities, that they are a pro-European force leading Armenia toward Europe and that a referendum on joining the European Union will be held in Armenia, are, at least at this stage, surprising, since they currently have neither a theoretical nor a practical possibility of being implemented.

Therefore, these discussions in the domestic political arena are false. They do not correspond to reality, so that they are an attempt to mislead the public during the pre-election period in order to pursue the path of political power reproduction for the next 5 years.

Get the Mirror-Spectator Weekly in your inbox: