As anticipated, the general elections held in Armenia on June 7 resulted in a victory for the Civil Contract Party, led by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, which secured approximately half of the vote. Equally expectedly, despite this victory, the party fell short of a constitutional (two-thirds) majority. This political landscape is poised to yield significant ramifications, not only for Armenia\u2019s domestic politics but also for regional dynamics and the overarching great power competition in the Caucasus.<\/p>\n
Why so?<\/p>\n
Let us examine the reasons point by point:<\/p>\n
First, despite suffering a crushing military, political, and diplomatic defeat over Karabakh\u2014a conflict widely recognized as Azerbaijan\u2019s just and legitimate cause\u2014Pashinyan retained robust public support. In the wake of this defeat, his vision of a “real Armenia” rather than an “imaginary” one, combined with his intention to swiftly normalize relations with Azerbaijan and T\u00fcrkiye, and his promises of economic revitalization and prosperity, clearly resonated with the electorate.<\/p>\n
Second, upon assuming office, Pashinyan underestimated Russia\u2019s geopolitical weight in the region, placing excessive trust in the West, specifically US and European imperialism. Observing this, Russian President Vladimir Putin chose not to chastise Pashinyan directly; instead, by refusing to restrain Azerbaijan or prevent Baku from delivering a decisive blow to Yerevan, he forced Pashinyan to confront geopolitical realities.<\/p>\n
Third, Russia maintains a formidable presence within Armenia\u2019s domestic politics, economy, and security apparatus, compounded by the vast Armenian diaspora residing in Russia. It is impossible for Pashinyan to dismantle this entrenched reality overnight. For a country of roughly three million people, spanning a mere 30,000 square kilometers, and burdened with a fragile economy, the structural dependency is stark: Armenia sends 90 percent of its exports to Russia, relies entirely on Russian natural gas (secured at a fraction of the price paid by European nations), and has an estimated two million citizens living in Russia. Consequently, Pashinyan cannot afford to escalate tensions with Moscow, even if he were inclined to do so. This explains why, prior to the elections, he announced that his first state visit upon victory would be to Moscow, with Brussels to follow. Despite receiving significant backing from the United States and Europe, his designation of Moscow\u2014which actively supported his domestic opposition\u2014as his premier foreign destination demonstrates that he has, to some extent, internalized the lessons of his early leadership failures since 2018.<\/p>\n
Fourth, while Armenia remains eager to cultivate the closest possible relations with NATO and harbors aspirations for European Union membership, Russia has countered this ambition by making it clear that Armenia cannot simultaneously belong to both the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the EU, forcing a choice between the two. Given Armenia\u2019s geographic isolation, trade structures, energy dependence, and Russia’s pervasive influence over Yerevan, the country is in no position to easily abandon the Eurasian Economic Union.<\/p>\n
Fifth, Pashinyan believes that a rapid normalization of relations with T\u00fcrkiye and Azerbaijan will dismantle the Armenian diaspora\u2019s leverage over Armenia’s domestic and, in particular, foreign policy. In doing so, he hopes to place Yerevan’s relations with Western nations on a healthier, more pragmatic footing.<\/p>\n
Sixth, Armenia\u2019s relations with Georgia are also fraught, overshadowed by historical mistrust and remaining tepid at best. Consequently, while Armenia struggles with varying degrees of tension and complex issues with T\u00fcrkiye, Azerbaijan, Russia, and Georgia, it possesses only one neighbor with whom it shares amicable ties: Iran, with which it shares a brief 44-kilometer border. Yet, preoccupied with its own severe domestic and international crises, Tehran is currently unable to offer much meaningful attention or support to Yerevan, despite years of historical alignment.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, this new era in Armenian politics carries profound implications, not merely for the nation itself, but for the wider region and the grand strategy of the major powers\u2014specifically the geopolitical rivalry between the United States and Russia in the Caucasus.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As anticipated, the general elections held in Armenia on June 7 resulted in a victory for the Civil Contract Party, led by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, which secured approximately half of the vote. Equally expectedly, despite this victory, the party fell short of a constitutional (two-thirds) majority. This political landscape is poised to yield significant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":55,"featured_media":15462,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"gallery","meta":{"ep_exclude_from_search":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[572,570,19778,610,2232,2924,2704,683,409,1192],"class_list":["post-15460","post","type-post","status-publish","format-gallery","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-opinion","tag-armenia","tag-azerbaijan","tag-civil-contract","tag-eu","tag-georgia","tag-imperialism","tag-nikol-pashinyan","tag-russia","tag-turkiye","tag-united-states","post_format-post-format-gallery"],"yoast_head":"\n