STEM presents an interview with Mehmet Oguzhan Tulun, a Turkish political scientist, expert in international relations and history, and analyst at the Center for Eurasian Studies (AVİM).

- How do you assess Pashinyan's course towards political concentration of power? Given the recent arrests of prominent figures, how stable is his control over state institutions?

- I would characterize Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan’s control over state institutions as being normal within the context of Armenia’s politics. However, Pashinyan inherited from his predecessors a political system riddled with conflicting agendas between Russia sympathizers, the irredentist Karabakh clan, Diaspora-linked actors, and West sympathizers. This conflict severely damaged Armenia’s long-term perspective on foreign policy and caused the country to become isolated in the South Caucasus. Pashinyan’s harsh methods to consolidate power for the Armenian government in order to battle against these conflicting forces is inevitably causing political controversy.

- Can we talk about the growth of authoritarian tendencies in Armenia? Or are these justified steps in the context of a complex geopolitical and domestic political situation?

- I consider Pashinyan’s steps to be justified when considering just how irrational and destabilizing the traditional actors in Armenian politics can be. Azerbaijan’s victory over Armenia during the Second Karabakh War, and Azerbaijan regaining full control over Karabakh is a devastating blow to the collective Armenian psyche that was shaped by unrealistic and unjustified assumptions. Armenia is now faced with the stark reality of regional isolation. To get out of this, Armenia must mend ties with Azerbaijan and Türkiye, distance itself from Russia, and build strong ties with the West. This is going to be a delicate balancing act for Armenia, but Pashinyan seems to approach this job with the force of a sledgehammer instead of the precision of a scalpel, which is shocking for Armenian society.

- What is Pashinyan's real support within the country today? Is there a stable social base, or could the growing protest develop into a serious political crisis?

- There is a no stable social base for Pashinyan’s government, because Armenian society is politically fractured and still going through the trauma of losing to Azerbaijan in the Second Karabakh War. However, Pashinyan is acting with the assumption that the Armenian opposition is divided, and that they represent the old ways of Armenian politics that dug the country into a political ditch. As such, the opposition does not offer any meaningful ways for Armenia to build a better tomorrow. The Armenian electorate is fully aware of this, and so generally supports Pashinyan’s government because there is no viable alternative. Pashinyan’s sledgehammer approach, however, could push the Armenian people to act in emotional ways, which could jeopardize his political future.

- The conflict between Pashinyan and the Armenian Apostolic Church has become perhaps the most acute in recent decades. What do you think is behind this: an ideological confrontation, a struggle for influence, or a calculation on electoral mobilization?

- This is for sure an ideological confrontation and a struggle for influence. As the traditional flag-bearer of Armenian identity going back centuries, the Armenian church possesses enormous influence on Armenian society. However, the Armenian church represents the old way of Armenian thinking that is very stubborn towards change. Furthermore, although the Church has a privileged place according to the Armenian Constitution, it is not supposed to act as a political institution. However, the Church is currently doing exactly what it is not supposed to do: acting like an opposition party. Pashinyan feels compelled to respond to this challenge, because it has the potential to damage his political agenda. His main mistake here is not that he is challenging the Church, but that he is challenging it in the most bombastic manner possible. In a traditional, devoutly Christian country like Armenia, it is very inappropriate for a statesperson to publicly berate and insult members of the clergy, which is what Pashinyan is doing right now.

- The arrest of Archbishop Galstyan caused a serious resonance. Could this step weaken the legitimacy of power in the eyes of the believing part of society?

- Archbishop Galstanyan’s connections to the extremist Dashnak organization and political conduct despite being a member of the clergy demonstrate that he is a dangerous provocateur who unfortunately views himself as a solution to Armenia’s problems. Based what can be gathered from Armenian press organs, it is highly likely that he is indeed part an organized movement to illegally take power in Armenia. While his arrest might seem controversial on the surface, any government would take similar action against someone like Galstanyan.

-The sharp cooling of relations between Armenia and Russia is accompanied by an attempt to diversify partnerships. How real is the threat of destabilization from pro-Russian forces inside Armenia?

- Russia is currently distracted because of the Ukraine war and its capabilities for meddling in Armenia’s politics are thus diminished. However, we should never underestimate Russia, as has it deep ties everywhere in Armenia that go back decades, and it very experienced in using such ties to serve its interests. Additionally, there is a very entrenched section of Armenian society that continues to view Russia as the only true protector of Armenian interests. Lastly, recent developments indicate that Russia is trying to exert its influence in the South Caucasus again. So, we should assume that there is an ever-present threat of destabilization from pro-Russian forces inside Armenia.

-Is the refusal to participate in the CSTO and the withdrawal of Russian border guards a strategic reorientation or a tactical maneuver? How can Moscow respond?

- I believe this is an attempt at strategic reorientation. Many people in Armenia have become disillusioned at Russia for its perceived failure to help Armenia during the Second Karabakh War. As such, things that represent Russian influence such as the CSTO and border guards have become unpopular. This is combined with Pashinyan’s conviction that the West is a critical asset in counterbalancing the power of Russia, Azerbaijan, and Türkiye. By attempting to embed Armenia in the Western camp, the Pashinyan government is seeking to safeguard Armenia’s future.

-Rapprochement with the EU and the US, including the signing of the Charter on Strategic Partnership with Washington, looks like a clear geopolitical choice. How sustainable is this course and does it carry internal risks?

- Armenia is lucky that its quest to move towards the West has coincided with the West’s desire to entrench itself in the South Caucasus to curtail the influence of Russia, Iran, Türkiye, Azerbaijan. All four countries, one way or another, are challenging US and EU prestige and influence both in terms of hard and soft power. Russia and Iran are currently distracted anyway due to regional developments. And unlike Russia and Iran, neither Azerbaijan nor Türkiye are institutionally opposed to the West, especially considering that Azerbaijan has solid economic ties with the West and Türkiye is already a part of the West because of its NATO and Council of Europe membership and EU candidacy. Azerbaijan’s and Türkiye’s response to growing US and EU presence through Armenia will, therefore, be nuanced and measured in comparison to Russia’s and Iran’s response. The Pashinyan government is willing to be a part of this plan, so Armenia’s rapprochement with the EU and the US seems to be sustainable for now.

-How do you assess Pashinyan's visit to Istanbul from the point of view of Turkish diplomacy? Can this be considered a step towards real rapprochement or is it an exclusively symbolic gesture?

- Pashinyan's visit is both a step towards real rapprochement and a symbolic gesture. It showcases that Türkiye and Armenia have built sufficient institutional trust and that there is enough political momentum to organize such a high-profile meeting. Pashinyan's visit can be seen as a cautious step towards normalization between the two sides. All of this represents a possible future where Armenia can finally break out of its self-inflicted regional isolation, which will eventually benefit all sides.

-What can be Turkey's contribution to the Middle Corridor project through Armenia? Can it be implemented without a peace treaty between Baku and Yerevan?

- Azerbaijan holds a special place for Türkiye for multiple reasons that are based on strong cultural, political, economic, and military ties. Türkiye will not be a part of any project that jeopardizes this special relationship. As such, Türkiye will not act in way that will damage the peace treaty process between Baku and Yerevan.

-How realistic is the opening of the Armenian border with Turkey in the next 2-3 years? Or will Ankara wait for the finalization of the Armenian-Azerbaijani agreement?

- The opening the Türkiye-Armenia border is contingent upon the finalization of the Armenian-Azerbaijani agreement. This is a critical part of Türkiye’s solidarity with Azerbaijan. Once the Armenian-Azerbaijani agreement is finalized, Türkiye-Armenia border can open in the next 2-3 years, or even less, depending on how constructive Armenia is in approaching its ties to Türkiye.

-To what extent is Armenian society ready for a real reassessment of its geopolitical position? Is it capable of coming to terms with the loss of Karabakh and moving on to building a new political identity?

- This will be a challenging process for Armenian society. It is still going through a shock and needs a lot time to process recent developments. Additionally, Armenian historiography demonstrates that Armenian society has a tendency to cling to the past. In the short term, therefore, Armenian society does not seem to be capable of coming to terms with the loss of Karabakh and moving on to building a new political identity. The Pashinyan government seems to want to remedy this situation by using the previously mentioned-sledgehammer method, and push Armenian society to accept the new reality in the region whether it likes it or not. The government has seemingly calculated that this is the only logical way to build a better future for Armenia. As it has become abundantly clear, however, this is a politically perilous journey for the government.