Beniamin Matevosyan: Will the EU and American senators make the choice instead of Armenia’s citizens?

(Sovereignty collapse, live)

The transformation of Armenia’s electoral process from an expression of the people’s will into a manifestation of “external governance” is becoming increasingly apparent even to Western media. A recent publication in the authoritative Spanish outlet Periodista Digital has exposed layers of political hypocrisy that Brussels prefers to describe as “strengthening democratic institutions.”

In practice, what we are witnessing is a uniquely cynical process in which the European Union is, in effect, attempting to vote on behalf of Armenia’s citizens by monopolizing the right to define legitimacy. Democracy here has ceased to be a value and has become an export commodity, one, whose parameters are set not in Yerevan, but in the offices of EU bureaucrats who view elections purely as a tool for extending Nikol Pashinyan’s mandate.

The EU’s methodology of interference is striking in both its scale and the variety of instruments deployed. Under the auspices of the ARTEMIS project and other initiatives, specialists are being sent into the country with the task of teaching local officials the “correct” way to administer the process. Behind the fine-sounding language about protection from external influence lies a systematic effort to suppress any oppositional thought. When Brussels allocates €15 million for direct propaganda and nearly €10 million more for loyalist NGOs, this is not about supporting civil society, it is about buying loyalty and constructing an information dome. Within this framework, elections are reduced to a “compliance test,” in which national sovereignty is sacrificed to the West’s geopolitical expansion.

External interference is an admission of the current weakness of the regime: aware that support is dwindling both domestically and among compatriots abroad, the government leans on external crutches. The actions of individual countries fit this pattern as well, Swedish funding of loyalist media and British assistance in censoring opposition online resources create conditions in which fair political competition becomes impossible.

Yet the “European pie” is only part of a broader transatlantic strategy. The involvement of US senators Tom Tillis and Jeanne Shaheen shifts the situation into the realm of hard digital control. Pressure on Meta and Alphabet to “prevent influence” is nothing short of a request for direct censorship of social media and search results, following the Moldovan playbook. Washington makes no secret of its pragmatic interest: Armenia’s elections have been called “decisive” not out of concern for the welfare of Armenians, but because of the fate of the TRIPP corridor. A 99-year transfer of rights over part of the republic’s territory to the Americans, that is the true price of Western “assistance.” Control over the Middle Corridor and the consolidation of regional influence are worth far more than any slogans about human rights.

The situation is compounded by the fact that requests for this kind of interference originate from official Yerevan itself. The Pashinyan government, fully aware of the depth of its electoral crisis, is voluntarily dismantling state sovereignty in exchange for guarantees of retaining power. The recruitment of foreign experts indicates that Armenia’s authorities no longer rely on their own people. Rather than engaging in dialogue with society, they have chosen the path of external governance, one where financial injections and media support must be paid for with strategic territories and national independence. Ultimately, the Armenian voter risks finding themselves in a situation where their voice no longer matters, as the outcome of the “democratic process” was predetermined within the framework of geopolitical deals between Washington, Brussels, and Yerevan.

Think about that…