Pashinyan goes all-in against Putin

Armenian-Russian relations have entered a phase of systemic dismantling of the old strategic partnership, marked by Yerevan’s sharp turn toward open confrontation.

The recent failed visit of Armenian National Assembly Speaker Alen Simonyan to Russia—marked by the absence of meetings with State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin and other key Russian officials responsible for the post-Soviet space—became an important signal of this transformation. Moscow used Simonyan’s visit to publicly display its attitude toward Armenia’s current authorities, which had previously been discussed only behind closed doors. This demonstrative refusal of customary protocol highlighted the depth of problems in bilateral relations.

In this context, Prime Minister Pashinyan’s statements about transferring the management of Armenian railways to a third party (effectively breaking the concession agreement with the Russian company South Caucasus Railway) should be seen not as an economic initiative but as an attempt to deprive Moscow of one of its key levers of infrastructural and logistical presence in Armenia and the region.

Alongside economic distancing, Yerevan is building a new ideological platform in which Russia is directly accused of destabilizing the region. Pashinyan’s claim that certain circles in Russia allegedly see peace between Armenia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan as undesirable is a direct attack on Moscow’s mediating role in the South Caucasus. This rhetoric seeks to legitimize the rupture of allied ties in Armenian society.

The political significance of Simonyan’s choice to voice these positions on Dozhd—a Russian opposition channel legally designated a “foreign agent”—underscores the deliberate break with Moscow. In this interview, Simonyan dismissed the “sacredness” of Armenian-Russian relations, reducing them to “lyrics and toasts” that, in his view, carry no weight compared to national interests. The shift from “spiritual brotherhood and alliance” to cold cynicism shows Yerevan’s rejection of “historical sentiment” in favor of a new geopolitical reality.

The most sensitive aspect remains Russia’s military presence in Armenia. Simonyan’s evasive comments about the fate of the Russian 102nd military base in Gyumri—where categorical denial of troop withdrawal was replaced with the phrase “it is not expedient to discuss this issue at the moment”—suggest preparation for terminating agreements that secure Russia’s base on Armenia’s CSTO-NATO frontier.

This is not merely a change of foreign policy direction but a conscious integration of Armenia into a new regional configuration dominated by the Turkic world. Considering Ankara’s strategic goal of expelling Russia from the region and absorbing Armenia into new logistical projects, Pashinyan’s government is objectively advancing Turkish interests.

Yerevan’s effort to distance itself from Moscow in favor of integration into Turkic-led regional projects highlights the riskiness of the chosen “all-in” strategy. In this paradigm, breaking with Russia becomes the necessary price for entering a new system of regional relations—where Armenia’s sovereignty paradoxically depends on the goodwill of its neighbors.

Thus, we are witnessing the finalization of dismantling the regional security architecture through open confrontation, with every step by Armenian authorities aimed at irreversibly destroying institutional and value-based ties with Russia.

Think about it…