Beniamin Matevosyan: Will Putin reveal details about the 2020 war?

(The “Civil Contract” party prefers an alliance with Baku over cooperation with Russia)

If your name is not Ararat Mirzoyan, Alen Simonyan, or Gevorg Papoyan, and you are not pursuing a clear political objective, namely, lying to your own citizens, then you understand that relations between Yerevan and Moscow are undergoing enormous changes in real time. This is not about diplomatic friction, but about the collapse of the previous relationship framework.

A number of landmark statements made recently, from detailed interviews by Mikhail Kalugin, spokesperson of the Russian Foreign Ministry, to keynote addresses by President Vladimir Putin on April 1 and May 9, as well as comments by Alexey Shevtsov of the Russian Security Council and Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk, point to Moscow’s transition toward a fundamentally new strategy. Its essence is that official Moscow has begun publicly voicing those problematic aspects of Armenian-Russian relations that had for years remained behind closed doors. This is not merely a shift in rhetoric, but a clear signal of a deep systemic crisis: when dialogue with Armenia’s current government reaches an impasse, the Kremlin begins appealing directly to Armenian society, laying its cards on the table regarding energy, logistics, and security.

One of the most sensitive areas of this “open diplomacy” has been transport and logistics. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s clarifications regarding the concession of the South Caucasus Railway appear to be an attempt to settle a long-running dispute once and for all. Diplomats stress that concession matters were discussed at the highest level as early as April 1, and that all “points of concern” were addressed in detail. However, what matters is not only the formal side of the issue, but also the economic backdrop: Moscow points out that since 2008 it has invested approximately 30 billion rubles in Armenia’s railway network, creating thousands of jobs and generating stable tax revenues. The emphasis on the fact that it was Russian management that laid the groundwork for the potential “unblocking” of regional communications directly contradicts the Armenian authorities’ claims about the supposedly restrictive nature of Russia’s presence. This reminder is addressed to the ordinary citizen who rides the new trains on the Yerevan–Gyumri route, not to the official sitting in a high office.

A similar dynamic is playing out in the energy sector. Rosatom’s proposal to build a new high-capacity nuclear power plant is being positioned by Moscow as a project capable of meeting Armenia’s needs for “a century ahead.” Here, the Russian side moves beyond general statements to concrete socio-economic terms: affordable tariffs, rapid industrial growth, and technological sovereignty. The mention that the realization of this project depends solely on the “will of the Armenian leadership” effectively shifts responsibility for any potential future energy shortfall or rise in electricity prices onto Nikol Pashinyan’s team. Moscow is signaling that its “Russian offer” is not merely a geopolitical tie, but a pragmatic path to modernization, including the digitization of public services and healthcare in line with the most advanced global standards.

The political context of these statements is inextricably linked to the upcoming 2026 electoral cycle. Vladimir Putin’s words about the need for a “gentle and civilized divorce” should Armenia choose the European path over Eurasian integration sound like a warning that the era of “sitting on two chairs” is coming to an end. The Russian president explicitly points to the enormous advantages Armenia receives within the EAEU framework, from agriculture to migration benefits.

Given that the next session of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council is scheduled for late May 2026, and Armenia’s parliamentary elections for early June of the same year, Moscow is effectively setting the agenda for the pre-election debate. The Armenian people are being invited to “do the math” and decide how beneficial it would be to abruptly sever ties built over centuries in exchange for the vague prospects offered by the EU.

However, the most intriguing and potentially explosive aspect of this new openness may be the truth about the 2020 war. To this day, many details of what preceded the conflict and what transpired during its most critical days have remained the subject of speculation and mutual recrimination. If Moscow has decided to lift the taboo on discussing economic and integration matters, it is logical to expect that the next step will be a detailed account of the Russian version of events of the 44-day war. Armenian society, which has lived for years in a state of information vacuum and manipulation, undoubtedly deserves to know the truth about each actor’s role in that tragedy.

What proposals were rejected by Yerevan, what guarantees were given, and what was actually discussed behind closed doors, the answers to these questions could fundamentally alter the public’s perception of the current political course of the ruling Civil Contract party.

Think about it…