By Irakli Laitadze

On February 4, 2026, the Georgian Parliament adopted amendments to the Law of Georgia On Higher Education. The controversial reform triggered mass protests from the academic community and broader society, which are still ongoing. The government argues that the reform will modernize the education system, concentrate limited financial resources, and increase the competitiveness of universities. A central element of the reform is the principle “One City–One Faculty,” under which multidisciplinary universities will be reorganized into specialized institutions aligned with regional and market demands. Critics argue that the reform will reduce institutional autonomy, weaken interdisciplinary research, and hinder integration with the European higher education system.

BACKGROUND: Over the past twenty years, Georgia has implemented EU standards in the field of higher education. The country participates in the Bologna Process and meets the criteria of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). The aim of this process and the EHEA standards is to improve the quality of education, promote student mobility, and ensure the international recognition of Georgian academic degrees.

Despite significant progress, several persistent problems remain: weak research infrastructure, insufficient links between universities and the labor market, and the excessive concentration of higher education institutions in the capital, Tbilisi. Of the sixty-one higher education institutions in Georgia, forty-six are located in Tbilisi.

In early February, the Government of Georgia initiated a reform of the higher education system; however, it significantly deviates from the actual needs of universities. The reform has provoked protests among professors, students, and the broader public. According to the government, the proposed changes will improve the quality of higher education and make it more responsive to labor market demands.

One of the declared goals of the reform is to support regional universities. The government argues that improving the quality of teaching may reduce the migration of young people to the capital and strengthen social and economic development outside Tbilisi. In addition, such support is expected to enhance the stability of regional universities and enable them to respond more effectively to local challenges.

The government argues that budget centralization and the redistribution of academic resources will enable more efficient use of funding for competitive salaries, equipment, and infrastructure. According to this view, restructuring will create better conditions for academic research.

One of the key elements of the government’s reform is the principle of “One City – One Faculty.” This approach implies the abandonment of classical multidisciplinary universities and the creation of institutions focused on only a few disciplines. Critics argue that such a model will ultimately weaken academia. According to the government, however, this mechanism will eliminate the duplication of academic programs across universities and align education more closely with labor market demands. The reform will also allow the state to control the distribution of quotas and admission rates. The number of students receiving state-funded scholarships, as well as their allocation across higher education institutions, will be determined directly by state priorities.

A significant share of Georgia’s academic community fiercely opposes the reform. Particularly active in the protests are professors and students at Ilia State University, an institution known for its strong criticism of the government. The university has become a main target of the authorities, most probably for this reason. Since February 4, protests have been held daily by several thousand campaigners, taking the form of marches and open-air lectures in front of the university.

IMPLICATIONS: The concentration of administrative and financial management reduces the role of universities in academic decision-making. Without control over financial resources, universities lack the capacity to strengthen specific disciplines. Decisions on how to allocate funds should remain the responsibility of the universities themselves. External bureaucratic structures are not well positioned to accurately identify or assess the specific needs of individual institutions.

The dismantling of multidisciplinary higher education institutions will reduce opportunities for interdisciplinary research and may hinder innovation. Excessive specialization risks making education overly dependent on current economic conditions and short-term market demands. Such institutions tend to be less adaptable to changes in the labor market and may limit graduates’ career prospects. If only one specialized institution operates in a region, local students will face limited educational choices, which may further increase migration to Tbilisi. Although specialization may appear beneficial, since concentrated funding could strengthen specific subdisciplines, in practice this effect is likely to be limited.

This is a complex issue that involves the broader context of the entire education system, including secondary education. It cannot be addressed solely through structural changes within universities, as the quality of higher education is directly influenced by the preparedness of school graduates, curriculum standards, teacher training, and assessment models. Without coordinated reform at earlier stages of education, university reforms risk becoming fragmented and ineffective. A systemic approach is therefore essential to ensure coherence, continuity, and long-term sustainability across all levels of education. Consequently, the government’s emphasis on specialized institutions may replace strategic development with short-term objectives. In the long term, such reliance on market signals may undermine the stability of educational institutions.

Nearly 75 percent of Georgia’s population supports further integration with the European Union and there is significant concern that these reforms will jeopardize the country’s participation in the Bologna Process and its ability to meet EHEA criteria. The inadequacy of the reform in addressing existing challenges raises international, as well as domestic, concerns. Moreover, the reform appears to contradict the commitments outlined in Georgia’s Association Agreement with the EU.

From 2026, Georgian state universities will be unable to admit foreign students, or will be allowed to admit only a limited number with prior state approval. Such academic restrictions and increased state control are likely to reduce both the number and the quality of joint research projects, participation in international academic programs, and student exchange programs.

The reform was developed without meaningful involvement of the academic community through open consultations, analytical assessments, or financial evaluations, raising serious concerns about its transparency. The absence of clearly presented criteria, objectives, and implementation mechanisms undermines trust among professors and students and encourages perceptions that the reform serves political rather than strategic goals, including increased control over academic freedom and expression.

Moreover, unclear decision-making procedures heighten the risk of politicization. When the criteria for financing and the reorganization of higher education institutions are not transparent, concerns about political influence and corruption arise. Limited public access to information on decision-making processes, budget allocations, and performance indicators also makes it difficult to evaluate whether the reform’s objectives are being achieved. The lack of clear benchmarks and independent evaluation mechanisms weakens accountability and reduces public trust in the reform process.

CONCLUSIONS: Criticism of the higher education reform by scholars and students highlights significant risks. The reform goes far beyond administrative restructuring and carries important social and political implications. These include the preservation of institutional and academic autonomy, transparent governance, funding for research, admission policies, the social role of universities, continued integration into European education and research frameworks, and the risk of unemployment among the intellectual elite. All of these areas risk becoming adversely affected by the proposed changes.

As of today, the reform applies to all state-owned universities, but there is no guarantee that similar measures will not later be extended to private higher education institutions. The reform contradicts Article 27 of the Constitution of Georgia, which guarantees academic freedom and the autonomy of higher education institutions. A major concern is that the reform may institutionalize political control over universities and significantly reduce their autonomy. Critics argue that an implicit objective of the reform is to marginalize pro-Western academic circles, which have traditionally served as spaces for open debate and free discussion. In the context of the government’s increasingly anti-Western orientation and democratic backsliding, the autonomy and independence of universities remain essential pillars of a free society.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Irakli Laitadze is an Adjunct Professor at Ilia State University (Tbilisi, Georgia) and Senior Fellow of the think-tank EU Awareness Centre (Brussels). He was previously a career diplomat, serving as a senior Counsellor in the Mission of Georgia to the EU and Director of the EU Political Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia. After his diplomatic service, he was the CFO in GMT Hospitality and CEO of Publishing House Artanuji. He holds degrees from Tbilisi State University, the Diplomatic School of Madrid (Diploma), and Cambridge University (MBA), and a Ph.D. (Magna cum laude) from Tbilisi Free University. 

By Umair Jamal

Pakistan’s ongoing military campaign against Afghanistan, initiated by airstrikes in late February 2026 targeting hideouts of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Islamic State–Khorasan Province (ISKP) in Nangarhar, Paktika, and Khost, has escalated into a declared “open war” following retaliatory Taliban attacks and subsequent Pakistani strikes on Kabul, Kandahar, and other locations.

Pakistan’s Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif, announced Islamabad’s decision to wage war on Afghanistan on February 27, 2026, amid intense cross-border clashes. Pakistan claims hundreds of Taliban fighters have been killed and dozens of border positions seized. The conflict highlights the Afghan Taliban’s continued refusal to dismantle anti-Pakistan militant sanctuaries within Afghanistan, a factor fueling regional instability.

Islamabad’s operations, reportedly enjoying international backing including from the U.S., appear aimed at compelling Kabul to alter its policies. Such changes could curb the regional spread of militancy and enhance security across South and Central Asia by weakening a regime that has continued to enable extremist groups since returning to power in 2021.

BACKGROUND:

Tensions along the Pakistan–Afghanistan border have persisted for decades but intensified significantly following the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 2021. Since returning to power, the Taliban have been accused by Pakistan of providing safe havens to the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a militant alliance formed in 2007 with deep ethnic Pashtun and ideological ties to Kabul’s rulers.

The TTP has intensified attacks inside Pakistan since the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Terrorist violence has risen sharply in recent months, with Afghanistan-based groups claiming responsibility for deadly incidents including the February 2026 bombing of a Shia mosque in Islamabad that killed 31 people, attacks in Bajaur district that killed 11 security personnel, and additional strikes in Bannu and other areas. Exploiting Afghan territory for training, recruitment, and cross-border operations, these groups have claimed hundreds of Pakistani lives in recent years.

The relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan has long been shaped by mutual grievances. Pakistan supported the Taliban during the 1990s and throughout the post-2001 insurgency in Afghanistan. However, relations have deteriorated in recent years as the Taliban-led government in Kabul has refused Pakistan’s repeated demands to crack down on the TTP despite sustained diplomatic pressure.

Pakistan’s efforts to fence the border have also generated clashes with Afghan forces, as Kabul refuses to recognize the Durand Line as a legitimate international border. In 2025 Pakistan conducted airstrikes inside Afghanistan for the first time, targeting TTP strongholds in Khost and Paktika in response to cross-border militant attacks.

Economic relations have deteriorated alongside security tensions. Trade between the two countries, once worth billions annually, has faced repeated disruptions. Pakistan’s exports to Afghanistan have nearly halted, while Kabul has been unable to access Pakistani ports for over a year.

The February 2026 escalation began with Pakistani airstrikes on February 21 targeting militant camps in Afghanistan in retaliation for terrorist attacks in Pakistan. The Taliban condemned the strikes as violations of Afghan sovereignty and claimed civilian casualties, including at a religious school. Taliban forces retaliated on February 26 by attacking Pakistani border positions.

Pakistan then declared “open war,” stating that military operations would continue until militant threats were eliminated. “Our patience has run out,” Defense Minister Khawaja Asif stated.

Pakistan’s campaign, codenamed Operation Ghazab Lil Haq, has targeted Taliban military facilities in Kabul, including ammunition depots, as well as sites in Kandahar, Paktia, and other provinces. Notably, these strikes included direct attacks on urban centers for the first time. Pakistan has also struck Bagram airbase, which houses Taliban military infrastructure. Islamabad further claims to have captured 32 square kilometers of territory along the Afghan border to establish a buffer zone. Pakistani military officials state that operations will continue until all objectives are achieved.

IMPLICATIONS:

Pakistan’s war on Afghanistan carries significant implications and could reshape regional security by confronting the Taliban’s refusal to act against militant groups. More than a dozen organizations, including TTP, ISKP, and affiliated networks, reportedly use Afghan territory to conduct cross-border attacks. In recent months the TTP has intensified operations inside Pakistan, while ISKP activities near Central Asian borders pose security risks to Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Pakistan’s strategic objectives appear broad and evolving. Islamabad is targeting infrastructure facilitating cross-border militancy, including TTP camps and hideouts in Nangarhar and Paktika. These strikes also seek to destroy logistical networks the Taliban uses—or tolerates—to enable cross-border operations, including suicide bomber facilitation networks and weapons depots.

According to Pakistani military sources, forces have captured several strategic positions across the border to create a buffer zone. Numerous Afghan Taliban posts along the Durand Line have reportedly been destroyed or seized in efforts to limit cross-border infiltration.

Pakistan also appears to be attempting to weaken the Taliban regime sufficiently to expose internal fissures. This could enable rival factions or opposition groups, including elements linked to resistance in Panjshir, to challenge Taliban authority. Such actions are intended to signal to Taliban leadership that providing sanctuary to anti-Pakistan militants will impose severe costs. From Islamabad’s perspective, sustained pressure could force Kabul to reconsider its ties with militant organizations.

The Taliban’s refusal to sever ties with the TTP, rooted partly in shared Deobandi ideology and Pashtun affiliations, has further isolated the regime diplomatically and economically. Pakistan’s strikes on weapons depots, bases, logistics networks, and Taliban military offices in Kabul and Kandahar aim to degrade the regime’s operational capacity and cohesion.

Economic pressure is also mounting. Pakistan’s full suspension of trade has significantly reduced Afghan exports. The ongoing conflict in Iran may further close alternative import routes for Afghanistan, intensifying economic constraints on the Taliban government.

In northern Afghanistan, resistance in the Panjshir Valley led by the National Resistance Front (NRF) has complicated Taliban control. Pakistan has reportedly targeted Taliban-linked bases in the valley in recent days, potentially weakening Taliban authority and creating space for resistance groups to expand operations. This could also disrupt Taliban access to Central Asian trade routes if resistance groups challenge Taliban control of northern corridors.

Pakistan appears likely to sustain pressure until the Taliban ceases harboring the TTP, remnants of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and other militant factions. Islamabad also appears to have secured a degree of international support. The U.S. State Department has affirmed Pakistan’s right to self-defense against cross-border terrorism. The EU has called for de-escalation but has not condemned the operations. Central Asian states and Russia have likewise refrained from criticizing Pakistan’s actions, suggesting tacit acceptance.

This international stance reinforces Pakistan’s position while increasing pressure on the Taliban. Although prolonged conflict risks refugee flows and humanitarian challenges, it could also compel the Taliban to reconsider policies that allow militant groups to operate from Afghan territory.

The Taliban leadership faces a difficult choice. Sustaining governance while harboring militant groups targeting neighboring states is increasingly untenable. According to officials, Pakistani actions are not intended to pursue regime change but rather to compel behavioral change in Kabul.

Such an outcome could align broader regional interests. An isolated Afghanistan where militancy thrives benefits no state in the region. Central Asian governments facing threats from ISKP may view Pakistan’s campaign as helping contain the northward spread of extremism. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan could benefit from reduced militant sanctuaries. Meanwhile China, the U.S., and other regional actors have consistently pressured Kabul to cooperate in countering extremist networks.

Taken together, these developments suggest Pakistan may continue military operations without facing significant international opposition. The Taliban, meanwhile, face mounting economic and military pressure, with limited capacity to respond to sustained aerial strikes.

CONCLUSIONS:

Pakistan’s war on Afghanistan, though carrying risks of escalation, civilian suffering, and humanitarian crises, may ultimately serve broader regional interests by forcing the Taliban to confront its militant entanglements. By targeting TTP and ISKP sanctuaries and pursuing objectives such as buffer zones and the degradation of militant infrastructure, Pakistan seeks to address security threats destabilizing South and Central Asia.

International support for Pakistan’s actions, particularly U.S. recognition of its right to self-defense, reflects a growing consensus that unchecked extremism in Afghanistan poses regional dangers. Sustained pressure could compel Kabul to reconsider its policies, reduce the operational space of militant groups, and potentially open pathways toward more inclusive governance.

Ultimately, weakening an ideologically rigid regime sustained by militant alliances could contribute to greater stability across South and Central Asia and benefit neighboring states long threatened by cross-border violence.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Umair Jamal is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Otago, New Zealand, and an analyst at Diplomat Risk Intelligence (DRI). His research focuses on counterterrorism and security issues in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the broader Asia region. He offers analytical consulting to various think tanks and institutional clients in Pakistan and around the world. He has published for several media outlets, including Al-Jazeera, Foreign Policy, SCMP, The Diplomat, and the Huffington Post.

By Ebru Akgün

Armenia is currently navigating its most significant geopolitical shift since its independence in 1991. The collapse of the traditional security architecture, which was built on the pillar of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), has forced Yerevan to embark on a perilous journey of "sovereign recalibration." By embracing Western civilian security instruments—most notably the European Union Monitoring Mission in Armenia (EUMA)—while simultaneously hosting legacy Russian military infrastructure, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s administration has adopted a high-stakes "dual-track" strategy. However, this hedging mechanism is reaching its structural exhaustion. As regional geopolitics shift toward binary alignments and the South Caucasus becomes a primary theater for broader EU-Russia competition, Armenia's tactical flexibility is increasingly challenged by the reality of asymmetric pressures.

BACKGROUND:

​The central challenge for Armenia’s transition is the "security guarantee deficit." While Yerevan has successfully frozen its participation in the CSTO, citing the alliance’s failure to respond to incursions into Armenian sovereign territory in 2021 and 2022, it has not yet secured a formal military alternative. The Western response, though diplomatically robust, remains focused on "soft power" and monitoring rather than "hard power" defense obligations.

​The EUMA's mandate has been extended until 2028, providing a layer of "visibility-based deterrence." However, from a military perspective, a civilian mission cannot function as a permanent shield. Unlike the formal mutual defense obligations found in Article 4 of the CSTO treaty—which Armenia now views as a "failed promise"—the EU mission carries no legal mandate to intervene in the event of an armed conflict. The presence of European monitors on the border with Azerbaijan may increase the political cost of escalation, but it does not provide the physical protection necessary to stop an offensive.

​For Western policymakers, Armenia serves as a critical case study of the limits of small-state hedging under asymmetric pressure. The lack of a "hard" security partner leaves Yerevan in a state of strategic ambiguity. While France and the United States have increased their security assistance, these relationships are characterized by bilateral cooperation agreements rather than mutual defense pacts. This gap between monitoring and defense creates a period of strategic vulnerability that regional actors could exploit, especially if the diplomatic cost of military escalation is perceived as manageable by Baku or Moscow.

​A critical but often under-analyzed component of Armenia’s new security architecture is its integration into Western-backed transit networks, specifically the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) corridor. Launched as a flagship initiative to decouple the South Caucasus from Russian and Iranian monopolies, the TRIPP implementation framework signed in early 2026 aims to integrate Armenia into a Western-secured transit network.

​The TRIPP initiative seeks to link Azerbaijan with its Nakhchivan exclave through Armenian territory (specifically the Syunik province) under Armenian sovereign and customs control. By promoting this "Crossroads of Peace" vision, the United States is attempting to create a vested economic interest in Armenia’s territorial integrity. If major Western corporations and U.S.-backed contractors become primary stakeholders in Armenia’s infrastructure, the logic follows that Washington will have a more explicit incentive to ensure the region's stability.

​However, the TRIPP corridor brings its own set of risks. While it offers an economic lifeline and a potential implicit security shield, it places Armenia at the heart of a "corridor war" between the West, Russia, and Iran. Tehran remains deeply wary of any increased Western presence in Syunik, which it views as its "red line" for northern connectivity. Meanwhile, Moscow views any corridor not controlled by its own FSB border guards as a violation of the November 2020 ceasefire arrangements. Therefore, the TRIPP corridor is as much a security challenge as it is an opportunity, requiring Armenia to balance American ambitions against the immediate geographical realities of its neighbors.

​Armenia’s military modernization efforts represent another pillar of its diversification strategy. Recent contracts for French GM200 radar systems and Mistral anti-air missiles, alongside the procurement of Indian Akash-1S missile systems and Pinaka rockets, mark a decisive break from the decades-long monopoly of the Russian defense industry.

​However, "buying Western" does not automatically translate into "Western security." Armenia faces an immense technical challenge known as the "interoperability trap." The nation’s current command-and-control (C2) architecture is built on Soviet-legacy systems that are historically transparent to Russian military intelligence. Integrating NATO-standard French radars or high-tech Indian artillery into this legacy environment is not just a logistical hurdle; it is a profound security risk.

​Without an entirely independent and secure C2 network—a project that would require billions of dollars and years of specialized training—Armenia’s new hardware remains vulnerable to electronic jamming or data interception by legacy Russian systems. Furthermore, the logistical chain for these Western systems is fragile. Unlike Russian equipment, which is supported by established rail links, Western hardware must be transported through Georgia’s ports or via complex Iranian routes, making the supply chain vulnerable to external political pressures. This technical sovereignty is the missing link in Armenia's military transition.

​The strategic direction of Armenia will face its ultimate domestic test in the upcoming June 7, 2026 parliamentary elections. These polls will function as a definitive referendum on the "Western pivot" and the "Fourth Republic" vision proposed by the Pashinyan administration. Public opinion in Armenia is currently characterized by "ambiguity fatigue." While trust in Western institutions has surged, a significant portion of the population remains skeptical that monitoring missions and "economic corridors" like TRIPP can replace the hard security guarantees once expected from Russia.

​The 2026 elections will be fought on two fronts: economic prosperity and national survival. If the government cannot demonstrate that its pivot has brought tangible security improvements or significant economic relief through projects like TRIPP before the elections, the opposition—likely backed by Russian narratives of "restoring traditional ties for safety"—may gain significant traction. The outcome of the 2026 polls will determine whether Armenia continues its pursuit of sovereignty through Western integration or is forced into a strategic reversal. The memory of the 2020 and 2023 conflicts looms large, and the electorate's patience for "strategic patience" is wearing thin.

IMPLICATIONS:

​Despite the rhetoric of "de-coupling," the physical and economic reality of Russian influence in Armenia remains a formidable obstacle. Russia still owns a majority of Armenia’s natural gas infrastructure through Gazprom Armenia and plays a critical role in the operation of the Metsamor nuclear power plant. To counter this, the European Union has pledged $500 million to enhance Armenia’s energy security and diversification, but the transition will take years.

​This economic asymmetry gives Moscow a "soft-kill" capability. The Kremlin does not need to launch a military intervention to destabilize Armenia; it can achieve similar results through "technical" border closures at the Lars crossing, energy price hikes, or logistical sabotage. The withdrawal of Russian FSB border guards from Zvartnots Airport was a symbolic victory, but Russian units still maintain a presence along the borders with Turkey and Iran. Any move that Moscow perceives as an "over-pivot" could trigger a devastating economic retaliation that the Armenian state is currently ill-equipped to handle.

​In this complex chess game, the role of Iran cannot be ignored. Tehran views the Syunik province as its essential gateway to the north. Any implementation of corridors—whether TRIPP or the Russian-backed Zangezur version—that changes the border status or introduces NATO-linked security actors is considered a "red line" by Iran. Armenia must navigate its pivot toward the West without alienating its southern neighbor, which remains its only other physical gateway to the world. This necessitates a delicate balance: engaging with the U.S. on TRIPP while reassuring Tehran that Armenia’s sovereign control over the route remains absolute and non-negotiable.

CONCLUSIONS:

Armenia is currently in a race against time. The dual-track strategy has provided essential short-term breathing room, allowing the state to begin the slow process of military modernization and diplomatic diversification. However, as the 2026 elections approach and the regional environment becomes more binary, the luxury of ambiguity is disappearing.

​For Armenia to survive as a sovereign actor, it must bridge the gap between "monitoring" and "defense." This requires moving beyond symbolic gestures toward a robust institutional framework that accounts for the state’s structural vulnerabilities. The TRIPP corridor and Western arms contracts are steps in the right direction, but they are not panaceas. Ultimately, Armenia’s ability to sustain its independence will depend on whether its Western partners are willing to provide actionable security pathways that go beyond binoculars and political statements. In a region where hard power still dictates the terms of sovereignty, Armenia’s "dual-track" must eventually find a single, solid, and defensible destination.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Ebru Akgün is an independent researcher specializing in the South Caucasus, regional security architecture, and transportation corridors. Her work focuses on the intersection of infrastructure development, military modernization, and geopolitical risk analysis in Eurasia. She actively monitors the evolving dynamics between Armenia, its neighbors, and global power enters. You can follow her latest research and professional updates via http://linkedin.com/in/ebruakgun

By Davit Gasparyan

Escalating tensions between the Armenian government and senior figures within the Armenian Apostolic Church are more than a domestic institutional dispute. The ongoing confrontation demonstrates Armenia’s broader geopolitical recalibration and growing concerns within Yerevan that Russian influence continues to operate through religious and cultural networks. While the Armenian Apostolic Church remains one of the country’s most trusted and historically significant institutions, the political behavior of certain ecclesiastical elites has intensified debates over sovereignty, national security, and foreign interference. The dispute is an example of how religious institutions across Russia’s neighboring countries can become entangled in geopolitical competition, particularly amid Armenia’s evolving foreign policy orientation and Russia’s continued reliance on soft power mechanisms.

BACKGROUND:

Relations between the Armenian government and the Armenian Apostolic Church have deteriorated significantly in recent years and particularly recent months, with public disagreements increasingly centered on Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s allegations of corruption, political interference, and questions surrounding the Church’s institutional accountability. While these tensions have often been portrayed as domestic disputes over governance and reform, Armenian political leadership has also framed the issue in broader geopolitical terms.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has explicitly linked his government’s concerns regarding church leadership to national security considerations. During a parliamentary question-and-answer session, Pashinyan stated that he “does not need a Catholicos who will obey him,” but rather one who “will not obey a senior lieutenant of a foreign special service” or report to foreign intelligence actors. Such remarks suggest that the Armenian government views elements within church leadership as potential conduits for external political influence rather than solely domestic institutional actors.

The Armenian Apostolic Church occupies a uniquely influential position in Armenian society. For centuries, it has served as a pillar of national identity, preserving Armenian cultural, linguistic, and spiritual continuity through periods of foreign domination, including Ottoman and Soviet rule. Public trust in the Church remains consistently high, making it one of the country’s most respected institutions according to the Caucasus Barometer, outperforming political parties and figures. This legitimacy, however, also renders the Church a powerful societal actor vulnerable to political instrumentalization.

Historically, segments of the Church’s senior leadership have maintained close institutional and symbolic ties with the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian state. These connections reflect broader historical patterns in which former Armenian political elites aligned closely with Moscow during Armenia’s post-Soviet transition and subsequent security dependence on Russia. Such relationships have periodically reinforced Russia’s ideological narratives across the region.

These ties became particularly visible following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. That year, Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II received a Russian state honor from President Vladimir Putin, clearly signaling the continuing closeness between Armenian and Russian religious leadership. More controversially, Archbishop Ezras (Nersisyan), head of the Russian Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church and brother of Garegin II, publicly blessed the Arbat Battalion in 2023, a military unit that includes ethnic Armenians associated with Russia’s war effort in Ukraine. The act carried strong symbolic significance, depicting how certain church elites have engaged in activities aligning with and supporting Russia’s wartime mobilization narratives against Ukraine. Pashinyan later alleged in 2025 that Archbishop Ezras was recruited by the KGB.

Russian religious and political actors have also reacted sharply to Armenian government criticism of church leadership. Representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church have condemned perceived state interference in ecclesiastical affairs, portraying Armenian government actions as part of broader efforts to undermine traditional spiritual institutions. Russian political commentators and politicians, including Sergei Lavrov, have similarly framed Armenian reform efforts as destabilizing and influenced by Western political agendas.

The dispute has extended beyond Armenia’s borders into Russian streets. Russian authorities have permitted Armenian diaspora communities to mobilize publicly around disputes between the Armenian government and church leadership and to publicly criticize Pashinyan’s actions. These developments show how the Russian regime has allowed and implicitly endorsed such attacks on Pashinyan as such demonstrations would require extensive scrutiny and approval by Russian authorities.

IMPLICATIONS:

The confrontation between the Armenian government and segments of church leadership reflects a broader geopolitical struggle over Russia’s influence within Armenian society. Religious institutions have historically served as important channels of Russian soft power across the post-Soviet region, enabling Moscow to shape political narratives, reinforce cultural alignment, and maintain influence even where formal political leverage declines.

Russia’s use of religious networks as instruments of influence has been particularly evident in Ukraine. Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent full-scale invasion in 2022, tensions between Ukrainian authorities and Moscow-affiliated religious structures intensified. Kyiv’s eventual support for the establishment of an independent Orthodox Church reflected concerns that religious institutions could function as vehicles for Russian political influence and intelligence activity. Similar dynamics have been observed in Moldova, where Moscow-aligned religious organizations have maintained strong societal influence and occasionally reinforced pro-Russian political narratives. In Georgia, Russian-linked religious messaging has also been used to amplify conservative social discourse and skepticism toward Western integration.

Armenia’s current church-state tensions appear to follow comparable patterns. Pashinyan’s government has increasingly pursued foreign policy diversification, strengthening relations with the EU, the U.S., and regional partners while reducing reliance on Russian security and economic guarantees. These shifts have heightened the Armenian leadership’s sensitivity to domestic institutions perceived as linked to Moscow’s influence infrastructure.

Pashinyan has suggested that segments of church leadership have been used in forms of “hybrid warfare” targeting Armenian sovereignty. While such claims remain politically and legally contested and strongly rejected by church representatives, they highlight the degree to which religious institutions have become intertwined with national security discourse in Armenia. The framing reflects broader concerns within Armenian political circles that Russian influence persists through societal and cultural networks even as formal bilateral relations undergo strain.

The dispute also carries significant domestic political implications. Armenia’s 2026 parliamentary elections are expected to take place amid heightened geopolitical competition. Russia has historically demonstrated interest in influencing Armenian electoral processes and public discourse and there are reports that it already has commenced influence operations. Given the Armenian Apostolic Church’s deep societal legitimacy, internal church disputes could become politically mobilized, shaping electoral narratives and public perceptions of government legitimacy.

At the same time, aggressive state action against church leadership risks generating backlash among segments of Armenian society that view the Church as inseparable from national identity. Balancing institutional reform with respect for religious tradition will remain a very delicate political challenge for Armenian authorities. Certain Western human rights and religious organizations have already criticized the Pashinyan regime for its targeted crackdown on Armenian church members.

More broadly, Armenia’s experience demonstrates how religious institutions across Eurasia continue to operate at the intersection of identity, politics, and geopolitical competition. As Russia’s conventional political leverage in parts of the post-Soviet space declines, Moscow has increasingly relied on cultural and religious networks to preserve influence. Armenia’s internal church-state confrontation demonstrates how such networks can become focal points of broader geopolitical realignment.

CONCLUSIONS:

The escalating conflict between the Armenian government and senior figures within the Armenian Apostolic Church should be understood as both a domestic institutional dispute and a manifestation of broader geopolitical transformation. While the Church remains a foundational pillar of Armenian identity and social cohesion, the political, pro-Russian alignment of certain ecclesiastical elites has contributed to growing concerns regarding foreign influence.

Pashinyan’s confrontation with church leadership reflects Armenia’s efforts to redefine its geopolitical orientation and reduce Russian soft power penetration within Armenian society. The outcome of this struggle will likely influence not only Armenia’s internal political stability but also its future strategic alignment. As Armenia navigates a changing regional security environment on the eve of its 2026 Parliamentary elections, the interaction between religious authority, national identity, and external geopolitical competition will remain a critical factor shaping the country’s trajectory.

AUTHOR’S BIO: 

Davit Gasparyan researches security dynamics in the South Caucasus and Russia’s regional strategy. He conducts research with the Institute for Security and Analysis and previously served as a Russia researcher at the Institute for the Study of War, and has worked with the Carnegie Endowment and Caucasus Watch.