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.
