The imperial whip and Yerevan’s reaction A Kremlin propagandist threatens Armenia

As the saying goes, time is the best judge — it is immune to emotion, political opportunism, and fleeting sympathies, and it ultimately delivers the most accurate and fair assessment of both events and the people involved.

Once again, time has confirmed this remarkable quality of being an impartial arbiter, as illustrated by one of the key mouthpieces of Russian propaganda — Vladimir Solovyov. Just a few years ago, during the rule of the Karabakh clan, he enjoyed an almost cult-like status in Armenia, being seen as an “advocate for Armenian interests” and a “symbol of Russian-Armenian friendship.” Now, however, this “friend” has openly revealed his true nature.

“Losing Armenia and the Central Asian countries is a huge problem for Russia,” Solovyov declared, going beyond this statement — a reflection of his openly imperial mindset. He then issued direct warnings, suggesting that if Russia considered it permissible to conduct its “special operations” on Ukrainian territory “to ensure national security,” similar reasoning could apply elsewhere.

“For us, what is happening in Armenia is far more painful than what is happening in Venezuela. Losing Armenia is a huge problem. The problem in our Asia — Central Asia — that could be a gigantic problem for us,” Solovyov stated.

He stressed that Russia must clearly articulate its goals and objectives, declaring that “the games are over,” and suggested the possibility of using force in other regions, which he described as Russia’s “sphere of influence.”

“Who cares about international law or the international order? If, for the sake of our national security, we found it necessary to launch the ‘special military operation’ on Ukrainian territory, why can’t we launch an SMO in other parts of our sphere of influence as well?” he said.

In effect, this is a public admission — and even justification — of the potential extension of the war into Armenian territory, suggesting that Armenian towns and villages could be destroyed just as Ukrainian ones are being erased today. This is no longer veiled rhetoric or ambiguous wording. It is a direct threat, to which the Armenian side responded: the Russian ambassador was summoned to the Armenian Foreign Ministry, where he was presented with a formal protest note.

Although the outrage from official Yerevan could have been louder, even to the point of imposing personal sanctions on the controversial TV host.

In this situation, the Armenian authorities could have taken a page from Azerbaijan’s playbook, which once succeeded in putting Solovyov firmly in his place. This refers to the events of 2020, when the propagandist made a serious political blunder by inviting David Babayan to his show and presenting him as the “Foreign Minister of Nagorno-Karabakh” — the same person who is now in Baku awaiting a fair court decision.

Azerbaijan’s response was swift and uncompromising. Solovyov was forced to issue public apologies to the Azerbaijani state on two separate occasions. “I made a major political mistake… It was my error to give the floor to only one side. That was my mistake, and I apologise,” the controversial TV host admitted.

This is a classic example of how a sovereign state defends its dignity and interests. In contrast, Armenia’s reaction so far has been limited to a diplomatic reprimand of their “old, good friend.”

In December 2013, Solovyov was awarded the Armenian Order of Honour, cited “for his great personal contribution to the development and strengthening of friendship between the peoples of Armenia and Russia.” Today, the irony could not be clearer: the Armenian public can now see and hear for themselves what kind of “contribution” Solovyov is actually making to these so-called friendly relations.

Indeed, there are growing calls to strip him of the award, as it is difficult to see anything other than shame in an honour held by someone who openly contemplates war against Armenia.

In this context, it is also worth noting that media outlets aligned with the so‑called “Karabakh clan” and the Dashnaktsutyun party have largely chosen to ignore the issue, as if nothing had happened and Solovyov had never spoken of Armenia as a potential target of new aggression. Both Serzh Sargsyan and Robert Kocharyan — under whose leadership Solovyov was once elevated to the pedestal of “Russian-Armenian friendship” — have remained silent, keeping their opinions carefully to themselves.

Supporters of the Russian‑Armenian oligarch Samvel Karapetyan — a man Solovyov publicly described as his closest friend while calling for criminal cases against him in Armenia to be dropped — have also stayed silent. As the saying goes, silence is also a position — one that, in this case, reveals a great deal and could even be interpreted as tacit approval of the proposals voiced by Solovyov.