Who is asking the EU and Turkey to interfere in Armenia’s internal affairs?

The story of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s political rise in 2018 was inseparably tied to the pathos of “gaining true sovereignty.” Back then, in Yerevan’s squares, the future prime minister promised the Armenian people “independence and the building of a state whose fate would be decided solely by the will of its citizens.” Seven years have passed, and reality has entered into sharp contradiction with the slogans of the “Velvet Revolution.”

Today we witness a paradox: instead of strengthening independence, the current authorities are voluntarily opening the doors to direct interference by external players in the most sacred sphere of the democratic process—internal elections. The statement by EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas that Yerevan has officially requested assistance in combating “hybrid attacks” ahead of the 2026 parliamentary elections is in fact an admission of the regime’s inability to rely on its own people. Involving Brussels in the domestic agenda under the pretext of protection from external influence not only devalues the promises of 2018 but also discredits the very mission of European institutions. Instead of fostering the development of a competitive political environment, the EU assumes the role of guardian of the current regime, helping to label any criticism of the authorities as “destructive external influence” or “hybrid warfare.”

Western assistance, however, is never selfless, and the price the EU is setting for Pashinyan is already beginning to take shape. It involves demands to join anti-Russian sanctions and, most critically, to abandon Russian energy supplies (EU Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos believes Armenia must follow the EU’s example and reduce its reliance on Russian energy to zero). Given the lack of alternative supply routes and Armenia’s infrastructural dependence, such steps inevitably lead the country into energy dependence on Azerbaijan and Turkey. In effect, to preserve his personal power, Pashinyan is ready to put the country in a position where the heat and light in Armenian homes will directly depend on Baku’s political will.

Moreover, behind these developments, even darker scenarios may be hiding. Geopolitical logic suggests that Armenia could be pushed to transform into a “new Ukraine” in the Caucasus, where, as part of the Organization of Turkic States (a future for Armenia envisioned by American expert Brianne Todd), the country would have to serve as an instrument of confrontation with Russia. The question arises: has anyone asked the Armenian people whether they want to fight against Russia? It is one thing to hear experts in warm studios discuss the “European choice” and quite another to face the prospect of combat operations in the mountains of Dagestan or on other fronts of someone else’s war.

Against this backdrop, Ankara’s activity is extremely telling. A recent statement by Recep Tayyip Erdogan about preparing “symbolic steps” and possibly opening the border is not a gesture of goodwill but a direct attempt to support Pashinyan at the moment of his greatest weakness. Turkey sees that the current prime minister is the most convenient and compliant partner and seeks to help him remain in power. Such blatant foreign interference in the pre-election period indicates that behind the façade of confidence in winning a majority in future elections, Pashinyan’s government hides a deep fear of its own society.

Low ratings and the absence of real achievements force the authorities to seek legitimacy not in Yerevan but in Brussels and Ankara. This only confirms the thesis that the current regime sees its problems and low chances of natural re-election.

In this situation, experts and political leaders, including Armenia’s second president Robert Kocharyan, are right, noting that if the opposition avoids fatal mistakes and can consolidate popular protest, victory over Pashinyan is entirely possible.

Today, the Armenian people stand before a choice between illusory external “supports” and a return to genuine sovereignty, which does not imply turning the country into a bargaining chip in someone else’s geopolitical games.

Think about it…