Armenia Under Siege: How a Small Democracy is Fighting Russia's Hybrid Warfare Playbook

When Armenia's Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan chose peace over perpetual conflict with Azerbaijan in 2022, recognizing each nation's territorial integrity through the Alma-Ata Declaration, he unknowingly triggered a cascade of covert operations that would reveal the true face of modern hybrid warfare. What followed wasn't a conventional military response, but something far more insidious: a multi-pronged campaign orchestrated from Moscow to destabilize a democracy that dared to chart its own course.

The small South Caucasus nation now finds itself on the frontlines of a battle Americans should recognize all too well—one where disinformation, political subversion, and covert networks replace tanks and missiles. Armenia's experience offers a stark preview of how authoritarian powers weaponize everything from church hierarchies to business elites when a former satellite state pursues genuine sovereignty.

The Turning Point

The pivotal moment came not on a battlefield, but at a negotiating table. After the devastating 2020 war that saw Azerbaijan reclaim territories, Armenia faced a choice: continue down the path of frozen conflict and dependency on Moscow, or pursue normalization with its neighbors and closer ties with the West. Pashinyan chose the latter.

Russia's response was swift and sophisticated. As Armenia-West cooperation deepened following the 2022 Prague summit, a coordinated hybrid operation materialized across multiple fronts. The goal was transparent: install a more compliant government in Yerevan before the 2026 parliamentary elections.

That this wasn't paranoia or speculation became clear in December 2024, when Russian investigative outlet RBC revealed the Kremlin's roadmap. According to RBC's sources close to the presidential administration, a new "International Projects of the Presidential Grants Fund" was established by presidential decree specifically to finance Russia's updated "soft power" strategy abroad. The fund, registered in Kaliningrad and supervised by First Deputy Chief of Staff Sergey Kirienko's domestic policy bloc, has an explicit mandate: develop and implement programs in social development, healthcare, culture, arts, science, education, and "historical memory preservation" on foreign territories.

The priorities were hardly subtle. While the fund's scope extends beyond the former Soviet space—with tasks already assigned for Africa—RBC's Kremlin-connected sources identified the immediate focus: "For 2026, the main priority is Armenia."

There it was, in black and white: Armenia had become Moscow's primary target for 2026, with a dedicated fund and institutional apparatus aimed at the country ahead of its crucial parliamentary elections. The hybrid operation Armenia was experiencing wasn't improvised—it was budgeted, organized, and directed from the highest levels of the Russian state.

When traditional political proxies—figures closely connected to Armenia's second president Robert Kocharyan—failed to achieve Moscow's objectives through conventional means between 2021 and 2024, the Kremlin activated a broader arsenal: propaganda networks, economic pressure, influential members of the Russian-Armenian diaspora, and perhaps most cynically, clergy within the Armenian Apostolic Church.

The Sacred Struggle That Wasn't

The operation's most brazen element bore the holy-sounding name "Sacred Struggle" (Srbazan Payqar)—a movement ostensibly led by Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, head of the Tavush Diocese. While cloaked in religious rhetoric, investigations revealed a disturbing reality: detailed plans for violent seizure of power involving up to 5,000 operatives organized into strike teams of 200-250 people.

Law enforcement searches uncovered more than just rhetoric. Investigators found weapons and ammunition, operational plans with specific timelines, lists of recruited individuals, smoke devices and incendiaries, military uniforms, radio equipment, drones, and perhaps most tellingly, documents listing individuals to be appointed after a forcible takeover.

The plans were chillingly specific: disable vehicles with spike strips, create artificial traffic jams and collisions, burn cars, fill tunnels with smoke to paralyze traffic, cut electricity and internet, launch cyberattacks on government websites, spread panic among the population, and carry out targeted shootings and imprisonments.

Recorded conversations left little doubt about intent. Archbishop Galstanyan discussed forming "200-250 strike teams" with military training, explicitly rejecting electoral politics in favor of force. When asked about support from business figures, he confirmed: "Not yet, but will join," referring to Russian-Armenian oligarch Samvel Karapetyan.

When Business Becomes Battlefield

Karapetyan's role illustrates how Russia leverages its diaspora networks. The Russian-Armenian businessman publicly called for power seizure when "political actors" failed, stating: "If they don't succeed, then we'll participate in our own way." He later declared from detention: "Nikol Pashinyan and his government have no business in Armenia and should have no connection with the Armenian people's future."

The convergence is revealing. Political forces allied with Kocharyan, clergy compromised by Moscow's influence, and oligarchs dependent on Russian markets—all synchronized in a campaign against a democratically elected government whose sin was choosing negotiation over confrontation.

The Ecclesiastical Dimension

Perhaps most disturbing is the exploitation of the Armenian Apostolic Church—an institution central to Armenian identity for over 1,700 years. Archbishop Mikayl Ajapahyan of Shirak Diocese openly called for military coup, stating in a 2025 interview: "Isn't it clear from my last six years what I'm saying? How many times did I say openly—a military coup is needed. I said it during war and told the presidents—Kocharyan and Serzh."

When confronted, he doubled down: "I never called for seizure. I called for coup, not seizure. I called on security forces to save this country."

The semantic gymnastics cannot obscure the reality: senior church officials actively promoted violent overthrow of Armenia's constitutional order. According to prosecutors, Ajapahyan participated in terrorism planning, even keeping a diary since 2022 documenting his thoughts—a diary that revealed direct connections to the "Sacred Struggle" movement.

The broader church leadership has its own problems. Over 100 clergy have called for the resignation of Catholicos Garegin II (Ktritch Nersisyan), accusing him of disciplining priests who refuse to become political tools. Recordings show the Catholicos pressuring clergy to mobilize families against the government. One disciplined priest reported: "The Catholicos asks me, 'Why don't you take your family members and go protest against Nikol?' No one has the right to reference my family members."

Another defrocked priest testified: "Any clergyman knows very well that if they raise their voice, it will be their last day of service."

Russia's Information Arsenal

Beyond political operatives and compromised clergy, Moscow deployed its formidable propaganda apparatus. Russian media outlets broadcasting in Armenia, Kremlin propagandists leveraging Armenian connections, and information resources under Russian patronage both within Armenia and abroad all synchronized messaging around five core objectives:

1. Facilitate regime change in Armenia
2. Obstruct the Armenia-Azerbaijan normalization process
3. Prevent Armenia-Turkey rapprochement
4. Undermine Armenia-West cooperation
5. Block implementation of regional connectivity projects

The sophistication lies not in any single element, but in their orchestration—each reinforcing the others, creating an information ecosystem where conspiracy theories about Western plots merge seamlessly with religious appeals and ethno-nationalist grievances.

This wasn't ad hoc coordination. With Sergey Kirienko's domestic policy bloc overseeing the Presidential Grants Fund's international arm and Armenia designated as the 2026 priority, the hybrid campaign acquired institutional permanence and dedicated funding streams. The same Kremlin apparatus that manages domestic political engineering in Russia—shaping civil society, funding loyal voices, marginalizing dissent—was now being systematically exported to Armenia under the guise of supporting "culture" and "historical memory."

Democracy's Dilemma

Armenia faces the eternal challenge of open societies confronting authoritarian subversion: How do you defend democracy without compromising the very freedoms that make it worth defending?

The Armenian government has chosen transparency. Rather than secret tribunals, it has pursued cases through constitutional processes, with public disclosure of evidence including recorded conversations and seized materials. The message is clear: Armenia remains committed to rule of law, freedom of speech and conscience—but defending those values requires confronting those who would destroy them through violence.

This isn't about suppressing opposition. Armenia's political spectrum remains vibrant, with numerous parties and movements operating freely. The line is drawn at armed insurrection and terrorism planning—a standard any democracy must maintain.

Why Americans Should Care

Armenia's experience illuminates patterns Americans have encountered domestically: How do foreign powers exploit political polarization? How do they weaponize cultural and religious institutions? How do they coordinate information operations with political action?

The Caucasus nation of three million faces challenges of scale and proximity that dwarf America's advantages. Yet Armenia's response—transparency, adherence to legal process, public disclosure—offers a model for how democracies can defend themselves without abandoning their principles.

The 2026 parliamentary elections will test whether a small democracy can withstand a great power's hybrid assault. Russia has mobilized political, business, information, expert, ecclesiastical, and diaspora networks toward a single goal: returning Armenia to its sphere of influence.

The stakes extend beyond the South Caucasus. If Armenia succeeds in charting an independent course while maintaining democratic governance and rule of law, it demonstrates that post-Soviet states can escape the gravitational pull of Moscow's authoritarian orbit. If it fails, the message to other would-be reformers is chilling.

The Path Forward

Armenia didn't ask for this fight. It simply chose peace with its neighbors and partnership with democracies over perpetual dependency on a declining authoritarian power. That choice revealed the lengths to which Moscow will go to maintain its perceived sphere of influence—recruiting clergy, funding conspiracies, planning violence, and as RBC's reporting confirmed, making Armenia the Kremlin's top 2026 priority for its institutional soft power apparatus.

As the 2026 elections approach, the world watches whether a small democracy can withstand the full spectrum of hybrid warfare backed by state resources and presidential decrees. The answer matters not just for Armenia, but for every nation caught between the democratic future and authoritarian past.

In an era when hybrid threats may prove more consequential than conventional military conflicts, Armenia's resistance deserves recognition—and support. The battleground may be in the Caucasus, but the principles at stake are universal: Can democracies defend themselves against covert subversion while remaining true to their values? Armenia is determined to prove they can.

The question for the international community is whether they'll stand with a democracy under siege, or watch as hybrid warfare claims another victim.

The facts presented in this article are based on official Armenian government statements, court documents, recorded evidence released by law enforcement, public interviews with the individuals involved, and investigative reporting by RBC (Russia) revealing the Kremlin's institutional approach to Armenia. The ongoing investigations continue to reveal the scope of foreign-backed efforts to destabilize Armenia's constitutional order.