Kremlin weighs in on unrest in Armenia
Political turmoil in Armenia is an internal matter, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, following the arrests of senior clerics and a Russian-Armenian businessman accused of plotting to overthrow Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's government.
Earlier this month, the Armenian authorities took into custody Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, the leader of the Sacred Struggle opposition movement, and Archbishop Mikael Adjapahyan. They are both accused of plotting a coup. The arrests sparked a public outcry and protests, which devolved into clashes with police.
The archbishops are key members of the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC), which was the main driver of protests against Pashinyan. The unrest was sparked by the prime minister's decision to return several border villages to Azerbaijan. While Pashinyan portrayed the land transfer as necessary to normalize relations with the neighboring state, many in Armenia saw it as a betrayal of national interests.
The authorities also arrested Samvel Karapetyan, a Russian-Armenian billionaire and supporter of the AAC, on charges of calling for the overthrow of the government.
In an interview with Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin, Peskov said Moscow is closely monitoring the situation but will not interfere.
'This is, of course, an internal matter for Armenia,' he stated. 'We are, of course, interested in the preservation of law and order in Armenia, so that Armenia is a prosperous, stable country, friendly to Russia.'
Peskov noted that Russia has a large Armenian diaspora, many of whom 'are watching these events with pain,' adding: 'Many, of course, do not accept how this is happening.'
Russia and Armenia have historically had close cultural and religious ties. In recent months, however, Yerevan has distanced itself from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which comprises many former Soviet republics. Armenia has accused Russia of failing to provide adequate support during its stand-off with Azerbaijan – in particular, over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Russia has argued that Armenia never recognized Nagorno-Karabakh as its own territory, meaning the CSTO could not consider Azerbaijan's military operation in the enclave as aggression against an alliance member. President Vladimir Putin has also said that Russia has on numerous occasions floated a territorial compromise that could have settled the conflict between the two states, and that Armenia rejected the initiative.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
9 hours ago
- Russia Today
Why the next revolution in this country might start in a cathedral
On the morning of June 27, the sound of hymns and prayers at the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin in Vagharshapat, Armenia, was interrupted by shouts and cries of protest. Worshippers had placed themselves between the church and security forces in an attempt to stop the arrest of Archbishop Mikael – one more in a growing list of clergy taken into custody in recent days. In recent months, the conflict between the Armenian Apostolic Church and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's government has escalated into open confrontation. What once amounted to an exchange of accusations has now turned into raids, criminal charges, and arrests. The authorities are no longer hiding the fact that they see the Church as a political threat. In the past century, the Armenian state has clashed directly with the Church only twice – during the final years of the Russian Empire and under Stalin. Today, a third confrontation is unfolding in the heart of Yerevan. Why now? And where could this crisis lead? RT takes a closer look. The events of June 27 – when worshippers at Etchmiadzin tried to block the arrest of Archbishop Mikael Adjapahyan – marked a new peak in the intensifying standoff between the Armenian Apostolic Church and the country's leadership. Although protesters attempted to stop him, Archbishop Mikael voluntarily appeared before the Investigative Committee. He was arrested on charges of publicly calling for the overthrow of the constitutional order. The next day, a Yerevan court ruled to keep him in pre-trial detention for two months. That evening, demonstrators gathered outside the courthouse – where, notably, the building's exterior lights were abruptly shut off. Two days earlier, on June 25, Archbishop Bagrat (civil name Vazgen Galstyan), the leader of the Sacred Struggle movement, had also been detained, along with several other opposition figures – including members of the clergy. According to the Investigative Committee, they were suspected of planning 'terrorist acts aimed at seizing power.' The authorities conducted searches of their homes, and on June 26, a court ordered Bagrat's arrest for two months. In parallel, Pashinyan posted a link on his Telegram channel to an article from the pro-government outlet which described a 'massive plot by the criminal oligarchic clergy.' the prime minister echoed the article's claims, effectively accusing the Church of trying to destabilize the country. This marks the first time in recent years that the conflict between the state and the Church has entered the realm of open criminal prosecution. The clergy and their public allies are now being targeted by law enforcement, while the government's rhetoric shows a willingness to escalate – with no sign of compromise. The confrontation between the Armenian Apostolic Church and Pashinyan's government didn't appear out of nowhere – it has deep roots in a longstanding clash of values and worldviews. 'From its very first day in power, this populist government has targeted the elites – and the Church has always been one of the most elite institutions in Armenian society. Populist rule and the Church are natural antagonists: one, the Church, stands for tradition and national identity; the other, Pashinyan's government, turns those values into a target, eroding identity and dismantling social ethics,' Artur Vanetsyan, leader of the opposition I Have Honor parliamentary bloc and former head of Armenia's National Security Service, said in an interview with RT. The rift became especially visible after the 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh. In the wake of the ceasefire agreement, the Church openly backed public protests against the terms of the settlement and against Pashinyan personally. Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II called on the prime minister to resign 'to avoid unrest and tragic consequences.' For the first time in recent history, the Church was openly aligning itself with the opposition – and the government took notice. The conflict deepened further in 2024, when protests erupted in Armenia's Tavush Province over the demarcation of the border with Azerbaijan. Following the transfer of four villages to Azerbaijani control, a grassroots movement called Tavush for the Homeland emerged – led by Archbishop Bagrat, who was arrested this week. Opposition politicians, students, and ordinary citizens joined a multi-day protest march from Tavush to Yerevan. The movement eventually evolved into the Sacred Struggle initiative, which became the main vehicle for the Church's open resistance to the government. For Pashinyan, the movement posed not just a political challenge, but a symbolic one. The Church, drawing on its historic authority and cultural legitimacy, stepped into the role of societal counterweight to the state. Crucially, it remained institutionally independent and outside the formal opposition, which made it an especially difficult rival for the government to contain. By mid-2024, the relationship between Armenia's Apostolic Church and Pashinyan's government had entered a sharply radicalized phase. What once was a war of words about the Church 'interfering in politics' evolved into a broader anti-clerical campaign – with explicit threats, legislative efforts to restrict the Church's autonomy, and increasingly personal attacks on the clergy. In May 2024,Pashinyan accused the Church of acting as a 'foreign influence agent since historical times' and promised to 'deal with the issue in two or three months.' Parliamentary Speaker Alen Simonyan suggested imposing taxes on the Church, while members of the ruling Civil Contract party proposed seizing Church property 'for various state needs.' That same spring, Armenian police, for the first time in the country's history, attempted to prevent Catholicos Garegin II – the spiritual leader of the Armenian Church – from attending a national ceremony in Sardarapat. The government cited 'security concerns,' but the message was clear: it no longer recognized the Church's symbolic standing. At the time, Pashinyan insisted he had no intention of removing the Catholicos, citing the constitutional separation of church and state. But by May 2025, he had reversed course – arguing that the government should have 'decisive authority' in the selection of the next Catholicos, and that all candidates should undergo background checks. In practical terms, this amounted to direct political interference in the affairs of a constitutionally autonomous institution. Pashinyan's rhetoric also grew increasingly aggressive. He described the Church as a 'dusty closet full of junk,' made crude comments about clergy members, and even questioned the Catholicos' celibacy – suggesting publicly that Garegin II could not lead the Church if he had a child. The verbal attacks soon turned into political maneuvers: the prime minister proposed forming a task force to remove Garegin II and select a replacement. In response, the Armenian Apostolic Church issued a rare and strongly worded statement, calling the government's actions a direct threat to national statehood. Political opponents accused Pashinyan of tearing the country apart, while a group of public figures called for him and his wife to be excommunicated – a step previously unthinkable in Armenian public life. Historically, conflicts of this magnitude between the Church and state in Armenia have been exceedingly rare. As Nikolay Silayev, senior fellow at the Center for Caucasus and Regional Security Studies at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, pointed out, the last comparable clashes occurred more than a century ago. In 1903, on the orders of tsarist official Prince Golitsyn, the Russian Empire moved to nationalize the Church's assets – a move that helped spark revolutionary unrest. The second case came in 1938, when the sitting Catholicos died under mysterious circumstances. Many in Armenia believe he was assassinated. 'Outside of those two moments, I can't recall another time in the last hundred years when the Armenian Apostolic Church has come under such attack,' Silayev told RT. 'And keep in mind – Golitsyn was an imperial Russian official. It's astonishing to see the prime minister of independent Armenia following a similar path.' Amid growing pressure from the state, the Armenian Apostolic Church and its supporters have taken on a more assertive role in public life. While the Church formally remains a nonpartisan institution, its clergy, allied public figures, and opposition politicians increasingly treat it as a de facto center of political opposition. In May 2024, Archbishop Bagrat took the stage at a rally outside the government building and announced that the opposition blocs Armenia and I Have Honor were prepared to initiate impeachment proceedings against Pashinyan. Later, Bagrat's name was floated as an alternative candidate for prime minister. Although he refused to enter the political arena directly, he called for Pashinyan's 'peaceful resignation' and urged nationwide pressure on the government. The effort ultimately fell short – the impeachment motion failed in parliament. But a year later, in June 2025, following the arrest of Archbishop Mikael Adjapahyan, lawmakers revived the idea of putting a cleric forward as an alternative leader. Independent MPs Hovik Agazaryan and Hakob Aslanyan proposed nominating Mikael for prime minister and launching a new impeachment initiative. The move was backed by the Armenia and I Have Honor blocs, which are tied to former presidents Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan, respectively. As with Bagrat before him, Archbishop Mikael declined to play a formal political role. Yet the fact that senior clergy were once again being positioned as political alternatives underscored a larger shift: in times of national crisis, the Church is increasingly seen as a legitimate political actor – whether it seeks that role or not. In June 2025, Russian-Armenian businessman and philanthropist Samvel Karapetyan, president and founder of the Tashir Group, publicly came to the defense of the Armenian Apostolic Church. In a sharply worded statement, he accused the Armenian government of waging a political campaign against the clergy. 'A small clique,' he said, 'has turned its back on Armenian history and launched an assault on the Armenian Church and the Armenian people.' He added that 'if political leaders fail to stop this, we will intervene in our own way.' That same day, Armenian law enforcement officers searched Karapetyan's home. Within days, he was detained and charged with publicly calling for the overthrow of the government. Karapetyan dismissed the accusations as fabricated and politically motivated. According to local media, the head of Armenia's National Security Service, Armen Abazyan, refused to authorize the arrest, calling it unjustified – and was promptly removed from his post. The Armenian Apostolic Church publicly stood by Karapetyan, denouncing the case against him as politically driven and calling for an immediate end to what it described as 'unlawful actions.' The episode revealed just how far-reaching the conflict between the Church and state had become. It was no longer limited to formal institutions inside Armenia. Around the Church, new forms of support were beginning to coalesce – from grassroots solidarity to backing by members of the diaspora and economic elite. Figures like Karapetyan, unaffiliated with any political party, were becoming part of a broader wave of resistance to Pashinyan's agenda. Although the Armenian Apostolic Church is formally separate from the state, its role in public life goes far beyond religious ritual. For a large portion of the population, the Church serves not only as a faith institution, but as a cultural and historical anchor – a symbol of continuity and collective resilience. According to Vanetsyan, the government's attempt to bring the Church under its control is widely perceived as an assault on the Armenian people's very sense of self. 'It stirs not only religious believers, but secular citizens as well,' he told RT. 'The Church is our cultural and historical foundation. For us Armenians, it is not just about faith – it is the cornerstone of our national identity, forged across centuries. The Armenian Apostolic Church is one of the pillars that helped preserve our people through genocide, exile, occupation, and statelessness.' In a time of political instability, economic pressure, and geopolitical uncertainty, the Church is seen as the last autonomous institution with true moral authority. Its efforts to remain independent from the state carry special weight – and growing public support. The mass demonstrations in defense of Archbishops Bagrat and Mikael were striking not for their political slogans – but for their symbols: crosses, icons, and banners bearing the image of the Etchmiadzin Cathedral. For many Armenians, the Church is not a conventional opposition force. It is something more instinctive – a source of order, legitimacy, and historical continuity. Vanetsyan sees this as a reflection of the deeper psychological state of Armenian society. 'Most people today are genuinely demoralized,' he said. 'The Church still offers hope for recovery. That's why this attack on it has triggered such a visceral response. And it's crucial that this response is thoughtful, measured, and proportionate. Because if the Church breaks under the weight of Pashinyan's authoritarianism, the damage to Armenian society will be profound. It won't take years to recover – it will take decades.' The political stakes of the standoff between the Armenian government and the Church are rising, with parliamentary elections scheduled for 2026. Analysts suggest that, given the declining approval ratings for Pashinyan and his ruling Civil Contract party, the campaign against the Armenian Apostolic Church is becoming part of a broader strategy – one aimed at eliminating any form of alternative, even symbolic. 'The prime minister's and his party's ratings are falling. There's a year left before the election, and they have nothing substantial to show for it,' said political analyst Nikolai Silayev. 'That's why Pashinyan and his team are getting nervous and trying to suppress anyone who could even theoretically pose a challenge. Not even necessarily by running in the elections – just by offering a different point of view.' The government's public pressure on the Church – through arrests, criminal charges, and accusations of plotting a coup – risks galvanizing not only religious supporters of the clergy, but a broader swath of the population disillusioned with the country's current direction. This is especially true at a time when the traditional opposition parties have failed to present a viable alternative. 'Pashinyan has no real public support on this issue,' said political scientist Grant Mikaelyan in an interview with RT. 'But what helps him is the fact that his opponents are disorganized, and the Church itself has chosen not to act aggressively. That's why the government faces little direct resistance for now – but public sentiment is overwhelmingly negative.' According to Vanetsyan, the government is dangerously underestimating the fallout, especially as frustration is already running high in society. 'Pashinyan's reputation is already in tatters due to his team's disastrous policies – their failure to address external threats, their authoritarian tendencies at home, aggressive fiscal measures, and the decline in people's purchasing power,' Vanetsyan told RT. 'Escalating the fight with the Church could be political suicide for him, especially if the elites and the broader public begin to unite in defense of national values and a more dignified future. This wouldn't just be a crisis – it would be a point of no return.' Against this backdrop, the battle with the Church no longer looks like a dispute over religious autonomy. It has taken on the contours of a deeper crisis of confidence in Armenia's entire secular power structure. The outcome of this confrontation will depend not only on the decisions of Pashinyan and his critics – but also on where Armenian society ultimately stands, at a moment when traditional political boundaries appear to be breaking down.
Russia Today
15 hours ago
- Russia Today
Kremlin weighs in on unrest in Armenia
Political turmoil in Armenia is an internal matter, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, following the arrests of senior clerics and a Russian-Armenian businessman accused of plotting to overthrow Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's government. Earlier this month, the Armenian authorities took into custody Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, the leader of the Sacred Struggle opposition movement, and Archbishop Mikael Adjapahyan. They are both accused of plotting a coup. The arrests sparked a public outcry and protests, which devolved into clashes with police. The archbishops are key members of the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC), which was the main driver of protests against Pashinyan. The unrest was sparked by the prime minister's decision to return several border villages to Azerbaijan. While Pashinyan portrayed the land transfer as necessary to normalize relations with the neighboring state, many in Armenia saw it as a betrayal of national interests. The authorities also arrested Samvel Karapetyan, a Russian-Armenian billionaire and supporter of the AAC, on charges of calling for the overthrow of the government. In an interview with Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin, Peskov said Moscow is closely monitoring the situation but will not interfere. 'This is, of course, an internal matter for Armenia,' he stated. 'We are, of course, interested in the preservation of law and order in Armenia, so that Armenia is a prosperous, stable country, friendly to Russia.' Peskov noted that Russia has a large Armenian diaspora, many of whom 'are watching these events with pain,' adding: 'Many, of course, do not accept how this is happening.' Russia and Armenia have historically had close cultural and religious ties. In recent months, however, Yerevan has distanced itself from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which comprises many former Soviet republics. Armenia has accused Russia of failing to provide adequate support during its stand-off with Azerbaijan – in particular, over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia has argued that Armenia never recognized Nagorno-Karabakh as its own territory, meaning the CSTO could not consider Azerbaijan's military operation in the enclave as aggression against an alliance member. President Vladimir Putin has also said that Russia has on numerous occasions floated a territorial compromise that could have settled the conflict between the two states, and that Armenia rejected the initiative.
Russia Today
3 days ago
- Russia Today
Kremlin responds to prospect of NATO nuclear-capable jets on Russian border
Russia sees Estonia's willingness to host nuclear-capable NATO aircraft as a direct threat to its security, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said on Friday. Responding to recent remarks made by Estonian Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur welcoming such deployments, Peskov warned that the presence of F-35 fighter jets in the Baltic region would be considered a serious provocation. He criticized Tallinn's stance as 'absurd,' adding that relations with Moscow 'can hardly get any worse.' Pevkur told local media that F-35s, which are capable of being equipped with nuclear weapons, 'have already been in Estonia and will soon return again in rotation,' and expressed the country's readiness to accommodate allied forces using such aircraft. The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have hosted NATO fighter rotations since joining the military bloc in 2004. Their airspace is patrolled by allied aircraft due to limited domestic capabilities. NATO's eastern expansion has long been a point of contention for Russia, which accuses the West of breaking post-Cold War assurances. During this week's NATO summit in The Hague, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer confirmed the planned purchase of at least 12 F-35A jets, thus restoring the UK's airborne nuclear deterrent for the first time since the 1990s. Although the US, UK, and France are the only official nuclear powers within NATO, American nuclear weapons remain stationed in several non-nuclear allied countries. Moscow claims that US-led training of NATO pilots for nuclear missions violates the spirit of non-proliferation agreements. Citing the need to counter rising threats from NATO near its borders, Russia deployed tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus and held joint drills with Belarusian forces last year.
