Putin Launches ‘Ukrainian Scenario’ in Armenia: How the Kremlin Plans to Overthrow Pashinyan
The upcoming elections in Armenia have become a critical test case for Russia’s ability to maintain influence over its neighbors without resorting to direct military intervention. As Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan continues to distance his country from Moscow’s orbit, the Kremlin appears to be deploying a familiar playbook — one that observers have dubbed the ‘Ukrainian scenario’ — to engineer a change in leadership in Yerevan. The stakes extend far beyond Armenia’s borders, potentially reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the entire South Caucasus region and signaling how Russia might respond to other former Soviet states seeking closer ties with the West.
The relationship between Moscow and Yerevan has deteriorated significantly since the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, which ended in a devastating defeat for Armenia. Russian peacekeepers, who were supposed to guarantee Armenian security in the region, failed to prevent Azerbaijan from reclaiming territory, leaving many Armenians feeling betrayed by their traditional ally. The situation worsened dramatically in September 2023 when Azerbaijan launched a lightning military operation that resulted in the complete capture of Nagorno-Karabakh and the exodus of over 100,000 ethnic Armenians from their ancestral homeland. Throughout these traumatic events, Russia’s response was notably muted, leading Pashinyan’s government to openly question the value of the country’s security partnership with Moscow.
Pashinyan’s pivot toward the West has accelerated in recent months, with Armenia freezing its participation in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the Russian-led military alliance, and initiating discussions about potential European Union membership. The Armenian government has also begun diversifying its military partnerships, conducting joint exercises with the United States and purchasing weapons from France and India. These moves represent a fundamental shift in Armenian foreign policy, which for three decades has been anchored firmly in the Russian security framework. For the Kremlin, losing Armenia would represent not just a symbolic blow but a strategic catastrophe, as it would eliminate Russia’s last reliable foothold in the South Caucasus.
Intelligence analysts and political observers have noted striking similarities between current Russian activities in Armenia and the methods employed in Ukraine before the 2014 Maidan revolution and subsequent events. The Kremlin’s toolkit reportedly includes supporting opposition political parties, funding media outlets critical of the government, cultivating relationships with religious leaders, and mobilizing diaspora networks to influence public opinion. Pro-Russian oligarchs and businessmen with connections to Moscow have become increasingly vocal in their criticism of Pashinyan, while social media platforms have seen a surge in content portraying the prime minister as a Western puppet who is leading Armenia toward disaster.
The Russian military presence in Armenia adds another dimension to this complex situation. Russia maintains a significant military base in Gyumri, near the Turkish border, which hosts approximately 3,000 troops along with tanks, armored vehicles, and aircraft. Additionally, Russian border guards have historically patrolled Armenia’s frontiers with Turkey and Iran. This military infrastructure gives Moscow considerable leverage and, some analysts fear, the potential capability to support more aggressive forms of intervention if political methods fail to achieve the desired outcome. The base’s status has become a subject of intense debate within Armenia, with some politicians calling for its removal while others warn that such a move could leave the country dangerously vulnerable.
The Armenian opposition, which includes former officials associated with the previous government and various nationalist figures, has seized upon public dissatisfaction with the Nagorno-Karabakh disaster to challenge Pashinyan’s authority. Large-scale protests have periodically erupted in Yerevan, with demonstrators demanding the prime minister’s resignation and accusing him of betraying national interests. While not all opposition figures are necessarily aligned with Moscow, there is evidence suggesting that Russian resources and organizational support have flowed to groups most hostile to the current government. The pattern mirrors tactics observed in Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, where the Kremlin has consistently backed forces opposed to Western integration.
The outcome of this struggle will have profound implications for the future of Russian influence in the post-Soviet space. If Moscow succeeds in orchestrating Pashinyan’s removal and installing a more compliant government, it will demonstrate that the Kremlin can still effectively control the political trajectories of neighboring states through non-military means. Conversely, if Armenia successfully completes its Western pivot despite Russian pressure, it could inspire similar movements in other countries still within Moscow’s sphere of influence. The international community, particularly the European Union and the United States, faces a crucial decision about how actively to support Armenian sovereignty and whether to provide the security guarantees that might enable Yerevan to fully break from Russian dependency. As the situation continues to evolve, Armenia stands at a crossroads that may ultimately determine whether small nations on Russia’s periphery can chart independent courses or remain perpetually subject to Kremlin pressure.
