As preparations are underway for the signing of several documents—including an agreement on the so-called “Trump Route” through Zangezur, the disbandment of the OSCE Minsk Group, and a framework memorandum on peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia—Russian propaganda outlets have launched a coordinated campaign to discredit the Armenian Prime Minister.
The reasons for this escalation are clear: the formalization of a U.S.-centered peace process threatens Moscow’s remaining influence in the South Caucasus and exposes its inability to manage conflicts in the post-Soviet space.
Simultaneously with the publication of the contents of the upcoming agreements, the Kremlin’s media machine is pushing identical accusations against Pashinyan, portraying him as a political figure who has allegedly lost national legitimacy and replaced state interests with personal guarantees from the West.
Notably, these dubious narratives are being voiced not by fringe actors but by institutionally recognized Russian experts with access to federal media and links to the Presidential Administration. This points to a centrally coordinated information campaign likely orchestrated from the offices of Lubyanka or Staraya Square.
In an interview with Lenta.ru, political analyst Nikita Lyakhovetsky directly accuses Pashinyan of betraying Karabakh’s interests, breaking ties with the Armenian Apostolic Church, and abandoning historic alliances—chief among them, the alliance with Russia.
Similar rhetoric is echoed by other experts—Alexander Asafov, Dmitry Solonnikov, and Pavel Danilin—who nearly in unison stress that Pashinyan is allegedly acting not as a head of state, but as an individual seeking personal security guarantees. Statements about “betrayal,” “Armenia’s isolation,” “a blow to geopolitical positions,” and even claims that the Zangezur corridor may be handed over to American corporations all fit within a classic propaganda mobilization model. This model combines intensified pressure with delegitimization of the counterpart. The campaign’s goal is clear: to disrupt or at least discredit the Washington agreements by portraying Pashinyan as a political outcast.
At the same time, it is important to note that today the Kremlin has limited tools of influence over Armenia. The pro-Russian segment within Armenian society is fragmented, demoralized, and lacks a strong institutional foundation. Any overt use of force or provocations—whether on the border or through information warfare—could further alienate Armenia’s internal elites and the public at large.
Thus, the Russian leadership finds itself in a classic trap of declining influence: it can neither derail the process nor accept its outcome. All indications suggest that in the coming days, Russia will escalate pressure on Yerevan as the weakest link in the chain. However, the very scale of this activity underscores the main point: Moscow is no longer a legitimate arbiter in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. In this sense, the Washington summit symbolizes not only a possible end to the war, but also the end of Russia’s era of dominance in the South Caucasus.
Farhad Mammadov
Translated from haqqin.az
