Beniamin Matevosyan: Will Alen Simonyan be the next to be banned from entering Russia?

(Russia’s rhetoric toward Yerevan is hardening)

The entry ban imposed by the Russian Federation on Lusine Badalyan, a member of the Civil Contract faction and chair of the National Assembly of Armenia’s Standing Committee on Healthcare, is yet another alarming signal of a deep crisis in Armenian-Russian relations. The incident occurred on October 14, when the parliamentarian was traveling to St. Petersburg to attend a meeting of a Standing Commission of the CIS Interparliamentary Assembly. The move clearly shows that Moscow no longer intends to make allowances for the official status of Armenian officials and is shifting to targeted personal restrictions.

The development comes against the backdrop of a clear hardening of Russia’s external rhetoric and growing economic pressure on the government of Nikol Pashinyan. In Russian expert and government circles, the belief is taking deeper root that Armenia’s current authorities have chosen a course of systemic confrontation and of pushing the Russian presence out of the region. Moscow’s responses are becoming ever more tangible. Rosselkhoznadzor has already asked the Armenian side to suspend, as of October 15, the veterinary certification of products of Modus Granum, a company that exports compound feed. To some, this may seem a symbolic step, but given the restrictions introduced even before the elections, it only confirms the systematic approach of the official Kremlin toward the Pashinyan government.

We note once again that such levers of influence on Armenian exports are not being used for the first time, but their synchronization with harsh political statements points to the formation of a single package of pressure measures. Against this backdrop, attempts by Armenia’s leadership to smooth over differences through individual concessions look largely ineffective.
The tactic by which Yerevan hopes to maintain a balance through agreeing (agreeing, not actually building) to the construction of a Russian-designed nuclear power plant or other infrastructure compromises will not pay off. In Moscow, these steps are apparently perceived not as a show of partnership but as forced measures on Pashinyan’s part that do not change the overall character of Armenian foreign policy. The signals coming from Russia unambiguously hint that occasional loyal decisions cannot compensate for the general cooling of political dialogue.

Recent statements by Russia’s top leadership on key infrastructure issues are also telling. Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, commenting on the idea of the Donald Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), recalled Moscow’s readiness to take part in infrastructure projects in the South Caucasus, stressing that the entire local railway network is technically serviced by Russian specialists, and also said that Russia has not yet been invited to take part in the project. The key word here is “yet.” This reflects one more Russian demand toward the Pashinyan government: to independently initiate a revision of the TRIPP project’s format that would involve Russia as well. For his part, Oleg Belozerov, Director General of Russian Railways (RZD), stated directly after meetings in Yerevan that the question of transferring or terminating the South Caucasus Railway concession had not even been raised, and that the parties are focused on fulfilling their obligations. In this way, Moscow clearly signals its priorities.

Taken together, all of this indicates that if Armenia is definitively assigned the status of an unfriendly state, it will inevitably hit the basic spheres of citizens’ lives, from energy and social stability to the working conditions of Armenian exporters on the Russian market. The incident with Lusine Badalyan raises the logical question of which senior Armenian official will be next on the ban list, and whether it might include Alen Simonyan, Secretary of the Security Council of Armenia (who earlier accused Russia of having “dumped Armenia,”

advocates discussing a ban on broadcasting Russian TV channels, condones fakes about a supposed mobilization launched in Russia after the parliamentary elections, and so on). In this situation, it remains unclear what dividends Pashinyan expected to gain from such a course, and whether the current results justify the risks faced by society and the state.

Think about it…