The upcoming Armenian election will decide the future direction of the country

This commentary was prepared by Mr Anri Stepanyan for the seventh issue of the Armenia Election Monitor 2026.

The upcoming elections that the Republic of Armenia will be facing next month will likely be one of the most decisive political moments for the country in the past decade. Ever since the Velvet Revolution in 2018, the country has undergone numerous internal and external processes that have significantly impacted its stance in the region, in the international arena, and the lives of its citizens. Much of this has been due to the change of regime in 2018, from the old-fashioned conservatives to the current ruling party and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who are commonly framed as “pro-Western”. The importance of the upcoming elections lies in the fundamentally different approaches of these two sides regarding the direction in which they want to steer Armenia.

The background:

The conservative bloc mainly consists of two parties, each associated with a different oligarch: Samvel Karapetyan of Strong Armenia and Robert Kocharyan of the Armenia Alliance. Both are in favor of continued alliance and cooperation with Russia, both reportedly receive Moscow’s support in the upcoming elections, and both made their fortunes through trade or business ties with Russia.

To this day, Russia remains one of Armenia’s largest trading partners, supplying most of Armenia’s wheat, natural gas, and a significant share of its petroleum products. Armenia exports to Russia alcohol, agricultural products, and, in recent years, has also served as a transit and re-export hub for certain Western-manufactured goods following sanctions imposed on Russia after 2022. All of this provides Armenia with a relatively stable income and stable prices for petroleum and food. Such co-operation is not surprising considering that both countries are members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Trade Zone.

Furthermore, the economy is not the only leverage Russia holds over Armenia. Moscow provided Yerevan with military equipment throughout the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It also established a military presence in Nagorno-Karabakh with the official reason stating: “it is necessary for the protection of the ethnic Armenians living there”. However, this security framework collapsed during the final conflict in September 2023, resulting in the involuntary displacement of approximately 120,000 ethnic Armenians from Karabakh to Armenia. This has led to an increased level of mistrust in Armenia, as Russia did not intervene to support it during the conflict, despite commitments to do so.

Despite this, both countries remain members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which continues to impact Armenia’s internal political landscape and Russia’s influence in the country, especially considering the continued existence of a Russian military base near Armenia’s second-largest city, Gyumri. All of this continues to provide Moscow with significant leverage in its bilateral relations with Armenia, making it possible to spread the Russian agenda within Armenian society and influence the country’s political direction as part of broader hybrid tactics.

The current ruling party of Nikol Pashinyan, Civil Contract, has taken a different approach. Instead of predominantly relying on Russia as previous governments did, they are attempting to diversify Armenia’s external relations and political partnerships. Over the past few years, Armenia has achieved its first major non-Russian bilateral military deal through the acquisition of Indian military technology beginning in 2022. The government has also established stronger ties with the European Union, particularly following the signing of the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) in 2017. EU–Armenia relations have increasingly deepened politically and institutionally, with both sides expressing a strong commitment to closer cooperation.

This process accelerated in 2024–2025, as the European Parliament acknowledged Armenia’s potential eligibility for EU membership, while domestic support for European integration grew through public initiatives and legislative action. This was followed by the formal endorsement of the goal of EU accession through the adoption of the EU Integration Act, demonstrating the government’s strategic shift toward closer alignment with the European Union despite pressure from Russia. 

The government also managed to secure a regional connectivity agreement together with Azerbaijan, backed by the United States, through the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) initiative. The project aims to create a transport route through Armenia’s southern Syunik region connecting mainland Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan, which could positively impact regional connectivity, trade potential, and Armenian–Azerbaijani relations after more than three decades of conflict. According to their official statements and agenda, Pashinyan’s party has pursued these initiatives in order to create a more diverse and peaceful political environment for the country.

The electoral methods and campaigns:

Both conservative factions are using relatively similar methods in their campaigns, which can broadly be divided into three categories. The first is the “blame game”, where they frame Nikol Pashinyan as a traitor to the Armenian people who not only lost the war in 2020 but also betrayed the Armenians of Karabakh in 2023 by refusing to re-enter the conflict.

The second aspect is the utilization of their assets both within the country and abroad. One example is the alleged purchasing of votes through distributing funds to ethnic Armenians living in Russia and Georgia’s Samtskhe-Javakheti region, where there is a large Armenian population. The criteria are relatively simple: the individual must possess dual citizenship, one of which is Armenian citizenship. On election day, they are transported to Armenia to vote for one of the opposition parties, with the aim of steering the elections in the opposition’s favor.

Finally, there is the spread of fear. As mentioned previously, Pashinyan is viewed by many as a pro-Western leader. The conservative narrative suggests that the West is not a trustworthy ally and would not support Armenia in the event of future armed conflict, unlike Russia, which they portray as a historical ally and neighbor. These narratives strongly align with the broader information flow within Russia itself.

Pashinyan’s own campaign strategy remains somewhat unclear. He appears to be taking a more grounded, door-to-door approach, presenting himself as a man of the people. However, this currently faces significant backlash from parts of society. Many continue to view him negatively because of the events mentioned above, particularly the outcome of the Karabakh conflicts and the arrival of approximately 120,000 displaced Armenians from Karabakh, many of whom hold strong anti-Pashinyan sentiments. Additionally, his official statements regarding Karabakh — framing the conflict as an unwise and ultimately suicidal war — remain deeply controversial within Armenian society. He has stated that the war should never have started in the first place. Unsurprisingly, this remains an extremely sensitive topic within society, as the wounds of more than three decades of conflict are still fresh, and many people have lost family members, friends, or loved ones in the war.

Possible outcomes:

Briefly discussing the potential outcomes of the upcoming elections, in the case of a Civil Contract victory, Armenia will likely continue its current course of diversifying its international relations and establishing new partnerships with both Western and Eastern actors, resulting in the country moving further away from Russian influence.

In the case of a conservative victory, there is a strong possibility that many of the initiatives and achievements of Pashinyan’s government over the past eight years could be reversed, bringing Armenia back into a stronger Russian sphere of influence. There is also a potential risk of renewed conflict over the Karabakh issue, as such instability would likely continue to serve as a powerful instrument of leverage for Russia over both the Armenian state and society.

Source: Mr Anri Stepanyan is a graduate of the Advanced Master’s in International Relations and Diplomacy at Leiden University and a Research Assistant at PMMG, focusing on geopolitical analysis, political forecasting, and qualitative research in international affairs. Check out PMMG here. 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)