Provocateur on the move Military criminal stirs trouble in Armenia

A new high-profile political dispute has erupted in Armenia. This time, the trigger was a statement by Vitaly Balasanyan, the “security council secretary” of the late “NKR.” He suggested that the country should become part of a union reminiscent of the Soviet Union — essentially a Union State with Russia.

Balasanyan put forward this idea while reflecting on possible changes in the global political system. According to him, the geopolitical map could undergo serious shifts in the near future, and states must define their place in the new order in advance. In this context, he stated that Armenia should maintain good relations with Iran while simultaneously becoming part of a larger union.

“We must join the Union State. I don’t know what they will call it now, but it should be like the Soviet Union,” he said.

Balasanyan’s proposal provoked a particularly sharp reaction from representatives of the ruling party, Civil Contract. Parliament’s deputy speaker, Ruben Rubinyan, accused him of attempting to question the country’s independence. He stated that thousands of people had sacrificed their lives for Armenia’s independence over decades, and no one has the right to suggest abandoning it.

According to Rubinyan, such ideas are unacceptable for Armenian society. “Let them bang their heads against the wall. People like Balasanyan will not see Armenia lose its independence. They will not get it, not in a million years. We will not allow it,” he said. The politician also linked Balasanyan’s position to the support of Russian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, founder of the Tashir group of companies and leader of the Strong Armenia party. In Rubinyan’s view, voters in the upcoming elections must respond to the forces that, in his words, stand against the country’s independence.

Equally categorical was Hayk Konjoryan, head of the Civil Contract parliamentary faction. He stated that Armenia’s sovereignty cannot be a matter of political bargaining and that attempts to discuss giving up independence are unacceptable.

Amid such a strong reaction from the authorities, opposition forces chose not to escalate the situation. Samvel Karapetyan’s Strong Armenia party and Gagik Tsarukyan’s Prosperous Armenia party did not comment on Balasanyan’s statements. Representatives of the Armenia bloc, associated with former President Robert Kocharyan, merely stated that the issue of joining a Union State is not on their agenda. At the same time, they also refrained from directly criticising his statement. The head of the I Have Honour parliamentary faction (a project of former President Serzh Sargsyan) declined to speak on the proposal, only reiterating the position of the Republican Party within the faction: “Armenia’s sovereignty cannot be a subject of bargaining.”

Clearly, the leaders of the Karabakh clan and other pro-Russian forces in Armenia preferred to distance themselves politely from Balasanyan’s controversial statement. At the same time, there is no doubt that he merely voiced openly what pro-Russian forces in Armenian politics prefer not to express directly.

Possibly, in this way, the Karabakh clan and pro-Russian forces are testing the sentiments of Armenian society ahead of the parliamentary elections this summer, trying to gauge how divided the population is on the issue of alliance with Russia. The results are unlikely to have pleased them. Comments on social media indicate a strong public rejection of this idea. It can now be assumed that the parties of Kocharyan, Sargsyan, and Karapetyan will adopt a more cautious discourse regarding Armenia’s foreign policy course.