The Zangezur Corridor: A Strategic Turning Point in South Caucasus Geopolitics

US President Donald Trump welcomed Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to the White House today. One of the main topics on the agenda was the Zangezur Corridor. President Aliyev made the following statement in early 2025:

‘We have been seeking a solution [to the Zangezur Corridor issue] through negotiations for more than four years. How much longer should we wait and why?’

Meanwhile, Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan claimed that Armenia had officially submitted a proposal called the ‘Peace Crossroads’ aimed at opening regional transport links to Baku and that no alternative project had been considered. However, in the following months, negotiations between the two countries accelerated with American mediation, and several international news agencies reported that an agreement on the Zangezur Corridor was expected to be signed on 8 August 2025.

What is the Zangezur Corridor?

The Zangezur Corridor aims to establish a direct land and rail link between Azerbaijan's mainland and its exclave, the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, and thus Turkey. This strategically sensitive region, known as Syunik in Armenia and Zangezur in Azerbaijan, is bordered by Azerbaijan to the east, Iran to the south, and Nakhchivan to the west. The corridor will serve as a vital transit route for trade and energy, effectively linking the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.

More strategically, the corridor aims to cut off Iran's access to the South Caucasus and facilitate Israel's geopolitical encirclement of Iran, potentially severing Tehran's regional links with Russia. These implications will be addressed in the subsequent sections of this analysis.

The initiative envisages comprehensive infrastructure investments to facilitate trade, energy flows, and human movement between Armenia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, and Georgia. Beyond economic objectives, it has profound strategic implications for the regional balance of power.

Legal and Political Foundations

The roots of the Zangezur Corridor project lie in the tripartite ceasefire agreement that ended the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, brokered by Russia. Article 9 of the agreement states:

“All economic and transport links in the region shall not be obstructed. The Republic of Armenia shall ensure the unimpeded movement of persons, vehicles, and cargo in both directions between the western regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic.”

The agreement also includes the following: “With the mutual agreement of the parties, new transportation links will be constructed between the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and the western regions of Azerbaijan.”

While Azerbaijan interprets this provision as a practical agreement on the Zangezur Corridor, Armenia insists that neither the term ‘Zangezur’ nor the corridor model advocated by Baku is mentioned in the text. Following Azerbaijan's final military operation on 20 September 2023, which resulted in the full control of the region, Armenian separatists surrendered and agreed to start talks on reintegration with Baku.

However, Armenia proposed a counter-initiative called the ‘Peace Crossroads,’ claiming that it would give it more control over transit infrastructure in the region.

US Mediation and Geopolitical Ownership

According to sources close to the US administration, the parties have agreed on the corridor, which will be named the ‘Trump International Peace and Development Corridor.’ It is reported that the US will oversee the project for an extended period and grant full authority to American contractors for construction and management.

Regional Reactions

Iran has strongly opposed this project from the outset, viewing it as a geopolitical manoeuvre in favour of Israel that threatens Iran's strategic position in the Caucasus. In September 2024, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated that ‘any change to the borders of neighbouring countries is a red line for Iran and is absolutely unacceptable.’

Russia, on the other hand, has adopted a more ambivalent stance. While cautious about Israel's goals in the region, Moscow appears to support new transit routes connecting Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan. Iran has interpreted Russia's recent statements as a sign that the Kremlin supports Baku's Zangezur initiative.

Turkey fully supports the project. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan emphasised that the corridor would benefit not only Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey, but also the wider region. Erdoğan said,

‘We view this corridor as a very important geo-economic project. It will strengthen regional integration and strategic links.’

Aliyev also warned that if Armenia continues to block the corridor's opening, it will face the risk of further political and economic isolation. His statement demonstrates a deep understanding of Armenia's internal civil-military dynamics and the structural limitations of its political class.

Aliyev is recognised as a strategic thinker in international relations, beyond his role as a national leader. His claim regarding Armenia's impending isolation is not merely rhetorical, but based on a detailed assessment of Armenia's internal fragmentation and the declining influence of the security apparatus in shaping foreign policy.

State-Church Conflict in Armenia: The Strategic Echoes of the Zangezur Corridor Dispute

Is this the biggest reckoning in Armenia's recent history?

As negotiations over the Zangezur Corridor intensify, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev issued a stern warning to Armenia: continued resistance to opening the corridor and opposition to the alliance between Azerbaijan, Israel, Turkey and the United States could lead to deep political isolation for Yerevan. However, Aliyev's warning implies something deeper: not just geopolitical exclusion, but internal instability stemming from Armenia's own civil-military and religious divisions.

Aliyev, who reads Armenia's internal landscape well, knows that the country's rejection of regional integration projects could trigger a dramatic internal conflict between the civilian government and traditional religious institutions. This power struggle has already begun in the streets of Yerevan.

At the centre of this internal reckoning lies the escalating conflict between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and the powerful Armenian Apostolic Church, particularly the Three Sees and Catholicos of All Armenians Garegin II. A series of recent events – mass arrests, allegations of coup plotting and rhetorical attacks on clergy – suggest that Armenia is in the throes of a deep regime and identity crisis.

Why has Pashinyan turned against the Church?

Pashinyan has recently launched a full-scale rhetorical and political attack on the Armenian Apostolic Church. He has not only accused the clergy of spiritual decay, but also of acting as a political proxy for foreign powers. This is an indirect reference to the historical and contemporary role of the clergy as agents of foreign influence, likening them to the behaviour of the clergy during the Byzantine period.

In a controversial government speech, Pashinyan likened the Church to a ‘cabinet full of rubbish,’ symbolically condemning its sanctity and legitimacy. He argued that some churches in Armenia had become mere relics, filled with forgotten items and devoid of any real spiritual function.

Political tensions escalated when Pashinyan claimed that Catholicos II Garegin, who is supposed to remain celibate according to church rules, has a child. Pashinyan claimed that this was not just a rumour but a provable fact and demanded Garegin's resignation.

If this claim is confirmed, the Catholicos' religious legitimacy will be shaken and the Church's moral authority and the people's trust will collapse. Pashinyan describes this campaign as a ‘people's revolution against the spiritual oligarchy.’

Echoing the populist tone of his political rise in 2018, he said, ‘The people have taken back the state, now it is time to take back the Church.’ He even proposed the establishment of a new coordination group, including both clergy and secular citizens, to organise a new election for Catholicos.

The Political Role of the Church and the Rise of Bagrat Galstanyan

Despite being constitutionally separated from the state, the Armenian Apostolic Church holds significant socio-political influence in Armenia and among the diaspora in countries such as Russia, France, Lebanon, and the United States. The Church's statements on national issues, particularly the Karabakh conflict, carry more weight than those of opposition politicians.

One of the leading figures of the Church, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, emerged as a strong voice of opposition. In 2023, Catholicos II Garegin publicly criticised Pashinyan's policy of reconciliation with Azerbaijan, accusing the Prime Minister of abandoning Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). These statements were echoed by Galstanyan, who has since led street protests and founded the movement known as the ‘Holy Struggle’ or ‘Tavush for the Homeland.’

Initially perceived as a social protest, the Holy Struggle quickly evolved into an organised political movement. However, according to the Armenian National Security Committee, the group is alleged to have begun planning an insurrection.

Coup Allegations and Terrorist Plans

Bagrat Galstanyan and his movement are under investigation for allegedly planning to overthrow the government through coordinated acts of sabotage and civil unrest. Security officials claim that between January and May 2025, the Holy Struggle mobilised over 1,000 participants with the aim of destabilising the country.

The alleged plans include:

● Using nail-studded devices (code name ‘Stars’) to block traffic

● Organising large-scale roadblocks and fake traffic accidents

● Launching cyberattacks on government websites

● Cutting power lines and communication networks

● Procuring explosive and flammable materials

Security forces claim that the plans aim to weaken the government and bring about the collapse of the regime by plunging the capital into chaos. Maps of Yerevan have been found with critical infrastructure marked. Officials say the rapid transformation of the movement from protest to alleged insurgency reflects a strategic convergence of religion, nationalism and political opposition.

Strategic Implications: A Divided Country Amid Regional Realignment

This internal state-church conflict must be assessed in the context of Armenia's broader geopolitical posture. The rejection of the Zangezur Corridor and resistance to integration efforts brokered by the US have pitted Armenia against leading regional and global actors, including Turkey, Israel, and the US. As Yerevan becomes increasingly diplomatically isolated, internal fissures are deepening and religious institutions are becoming both the symbolic and operational centre of resistance.

In this context, President Ilham Aliyev's warning that Armenia's isolation will deepen is not exaggerated; it reflects a broader strategic foresight. Armenia risks being encircled by diplomatic marginalisation from outside and civil unrest and opposition from clerics who could gain support from external actors such as Russia.

While Prime Minister Pashinyan pursues a secular-nationalist agenda aimed at modernising Armenia and distancing it from entrenched institutional power structures, critics argue that this agenda is eliminating the last vestiges of the country's traditional identity. The outcome of this conflict could determine whether Armenia will become a fully integrated participant in the new Eurasian corridors or a fragmented state torn between old loyalties and new alliances.

Anna Hakobyan, wife of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, has recently taken an unusual and confrontational role in the intensifying church-state conflict in Armenia. Her statements, particularly on social media, have sparked widespread debate. Hakobyan made a striking move by describing Catholicos Karekin II as the country's ‘leading mafia boss.’ This comment sparked significant backlash from both religious institutions and civil society.

Perhaps his most provocative statement was his use of the Armenian word ‘chulan,’ which traditionally means “basement” or ‘junk storage.’ He applied this term metaphorically to Armenian churches, claiming that these ‘chulans’ no longer represent the people's faith but have instead become corrupt structures dominated by shadowy dealings.

As expected, his words sparked sharp reactions. Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, a leading figure in the church, described his remarks as a direct attack on religious values and freedom of belief. Prominent legal experts also joined the debate. Lawyer Ara Zohrabyan filed an official complaint with the Anti-Corruption Commission, alleging that Prime Minister Pashinyan and his wife had violated constitutional boundaries by weakening the Armenian Apostolic Church, a constitutionally recognised institution. He emphasised that Armenian law obliges state officials to respect the church and remain impartial.

Political analyst Zoyan Levonisyan said that this crisis was not a sudden development, but rather a continuation of the long-standing separation between church and state that began with Pashinyan's rise to power in 2018. At that time, public dissatisfaction with Catholicos II Karekin was growing, particularly due to allegations of corruption. There were even rumours that Pashinyan wanted to appoint a new religious leader. It was alleged that Pashinyan proposed that Catholicos Aram I of the Great House of Cilicia take over the leadership of the entire Armenian Apostolic Church. This proposal was categorically rejected and led to a major internal crisis within the church.

This rejection led to a temporary truce between Pashinyan and Catholicos II Karekin. However, this fragile balance was shattered following the 2022 Karabakh War. After the war, the Armenian Apostolic Church began to align itself increasingly with the political opposition and openly supported former presidents Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan.

Today, Archbishop Galstanyan has emerged as the leader of the anti-Pashinyan protest movement and has further politicised the religious institution. Levonisyan argues that the church has lost a lot in this conflict.

The church enjoys significant privileges, including tax exemptions, property ownership, and legal protections. Pashinyan believes that these privileges should be re-evaluated. He argues that the church should remain neutral and refrain from political intervention.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is not only a religious institution but also one of the cornerstones of Armenia's cultural and national identity. Approximately 97.5% of Armenia's population belongs to this church. Its apostolic identity stems from the belief that it was founded by Saint Thaddeus and Saint Bartholomew, two of Jesus' apostles. The spiritual centre of the church is located in Vagharshapat, in the Armavir province of Armenia, known as the Holy See of Etchmiadzin. This province, renamed in 1995, was historically known as Sardarabad and was established during the reign of Hussein Ali Khan, the last khan of the Erivan Khanate, and is a region with significant Azerbaijani-Turkish heritage.

Thus, the modern spiritual centre of the Armenian Church is situated in a region historically linked to the Azerbaijani Turks, further complicating the national narrative.

Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan's ‘Holy Struggle’ movement has received significant support from political groups affiliated with former presidents Kocharyan and Sargsyan, both known for their pro-Russian stance. During their administrations, Armenia's military doctrine became increasingly dependent on Moscow.

Important decisions such as the establishment of joint military bases with Russia, membership in the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organisation) and the deployment of Russian forces on Armenia's borders were taken under their leadership. These administrations also witnessed the rapid rise of oligarchic structures closely linked to Russian business interests.

Armenian billionaires living in Russia, such as Samvel Karapetyan, have played an important role in financing political activities and shaping the media landscape. The Armenian Apostolic Church, long seen as one of Moscow's soft power tools, has historically benefited from these ties. Pashinyan is aware of these dynamics and has made efforts to reduce Moscow's influence over the church.

Despite these efforts, internal political dynamics appear to favour Pashinyan. The opposition lacks broad-based support, and the old Karabakh-centred elite has largely lost its political capital. As a result, the likelihood of a Moscow-backed regime change through these traditional actors has significantly diminished.

In this context, the Armenian Apostolic Church remains one of Russia's last levers in Armenia's internal affairs. The current conflict between the government and the church should be seen not only as an internal struggle over secularism, but as a larger geopolitical manoeuvre at the heart of the Armenian state, where religion, nationalism and external influences collide.

Russia's Shadow in the Chaos in Armenia: The Karapetyan Case, Church Politics, and the Pashinyan-Erdoğan Meeting

Following the latest coup attempt in Armenia, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan made a cryptic but meaningful statement: "The pieces of the puzzle are coming together.

With every passing minute, the picture is becoming clearer." Although Russia is not explicitly named, the subtext of Pashinyan's words clearly points to Moscow. He is referring to a network of central political, religious and financial actors who are orchestrating the turmoil in Armenia, and he is indirectly but in a very layered way implying that Russia is deeply involved in the country's internal affairs.

At the centre of this geopolitical puzzle is Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, who has significant business interests in Russia and close ties to the Kremlin. Karapetyan is a major financial backer of the Armenian Apostolic Church, particularly Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, who has been prominent in the recent protests. His arrest by Armenian authorities sent shock waves through Moscow. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded cautiously, emphasising the ‘importance of compliance with the law’ and stressing that Russia remains ‘a friend and stable partner’ of Armenia. This diplomatic language was a subtle way of expressing pressure on Yerevan.

Pashinyan further hardened his rhetoric by posting veiled accusations against Karapetyan on social media:

‘We can't even say who is behind the power cuts. The great philanthropist, the tireless transfer lord, the Monte Cristo of our time. He doesn't care about ENA or its subscribers.’

The power cuts mentioned in Pashinyan's post are believed to be linked to sabotage operations carried out by the so-called ‘Holy Struggle Movement,’ which Pashinyan claims is financed by Karapetyan. The sarcastic epithet ‘great philanthropist’ highlights Karapetyan's duplicitous image: on the one hand, a philanthropist and donor to religious causes, on the other, a financier of chaos and civil unrest.

Through the holding company Tashir Group, he controls approximately 80% of Armenia's electricity distribution network via the Armenian Electricity Networks (ENA). By portraying Karapetyan as the person who controls and undermines the country's energy in both the literal and figurative sense, Pashinyan depicts him as an oligarch linked to the Kremlin who uses infrastructure as a weapon for political purposes.

In this context, the Armenian parliament recently passed a law to nationalise key assets of Karapetyan's holding company. This move directly targets Karapetyan's influence. It is more than an internal political decision; it is a geopolitical stance against Russian influence.

Moscow has long viewed Karapetyan as a soft power tool that serves as a bridge between the Kremlin and Armenian clergy, economic elites, and the political opposition. Karapetyan's arrest significantly increases the risks in the deteriorating Russia-Armenia relations.

At the same time, Pashinyan is pursuing an unprecedented diplomatic realignment. His recent meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was the first high-level diplomatic contact between Armenia and Turkey in decades. Held after Erdoğan's trilateral meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, the meeting signals that Turkey and Azerbaijan are pursuing a coordinated strategy to manage normalisation efforts with Yerevan.

The meeting addressed issues such as the reopening of border crossings, the establishment of full diplomatic relations, and the deepening of economic cooperation. Pashinyan also visited religious sites such as the Holy Mother of God Cathedral and the Sultanahmet Mosque and held consultations with Armenian religious leaders in Istanbul. These symbolic steps signalled a more open and conciliatory approach.

This change deeply unsettled Russia, which views Ankara's growing role in the South Caucasus as a strategic threat. However, faced with Israel's growing influence in the region and Tehran's geopolitical encirclement, Moscow is trying to maintain its influence through covert means, while refraining from responding openly.

Shortly after the Ankara meeting, a coup attempt took place in Armenia. Many see this political turmoil as the first concrete result of Yerevan's move away from Russia and towards regional reintegration led by Turkey and Azerbaijan.

Although there is no direct evidence that Russia orchestrated these events, the structure of the elite network of businessmen, religious leaders and energy companies that took action against Pashinyan points to hybrid intervention. The Kremlin may not be pulling all the strings, but its fingerprints are becoming increasingly clear.

Conclusion: Strategic Showdown at Armenia's Geopolitical Crossroads

The Zangezur Corridor is not merely a proposed transit route, but a strategic litmus test for the geopolitical future of the South Caucasus.

For Armenia, this is no longer merely a matter of territorial sovereignty or transportation logistics; it is a question of national survival in a changing global order.

Russia's influence, particularly through the mobilisation of oligarchic networks, religious figures, and economic sabotage, is becoming increasingly evident in Armenia's internal turmoil. The arrest of Samvel Karapetyan, Anna Hakobyan's politically charged statements, and the aggressive stance of Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan are not isolated incidents. These are visible components of Russia's broader initiative to orchestrate regime change in Yerevan. Prime Minister Pashinyan, who is well aware of these manoeuvres, has chosen to reorient Armenia's strategic stance not out of ideological conviction but out of geopolitical necessity.

Faced with the threat of a Kremlin-backed coup and the erosion of internal sovereignty, Pashinyan was forced to support US President Donald Trump's Zangezur initiative. By supporting the so-called ‘Trump International Peace and Development Corridor,’ Pashinyan aims to secure US protection, weaken Russia's influence, and prevent the collapse of his government.

However, this shift in direction will also have consequences. The corridor project is closely linked to Israel's geopolitical objectives, particularly the strategic encirclement and isolation of Iran. Israel views the Zangezur route as a geopolitical artery that will sever Iran's ties with the Caucasus and Russia and become part of a broader regional containment doctrine. This puts Yerevan in a delicate position: opposing the corridor would mean alienating both Washington and Tel Aviv; supporting it would provoke Tehran and Moscow.

Indeed, the Zangezur peace agreement was signed not immediately after the Second Karabakh War, but after the 12-day Israel-Iran war, a short but decisive conflict that reshaped regional balances. The signing of the agreement was deliberately delayed until the outcome of the war became clear, as Israel sought to secure its northern flank by encircling Iran in the Caucasus. In this geopolitical calculation, the agreement reached between Azerbaijan and Armenia on the Zangezur Corridor became a vital component of Israel's security strategy. This alliance was formalised under Trump's mediation, and for Pashinyan, the agreement was not only a diplomatic breakthrough but also a lifeline that helped him escape an impending coup in his country.

Not wanting to enter into conflict with Israel, whose influence in Washington and intelligence cooperation in the region are indispensable, Pashinyan found himself in a narrowing corridor. To prevent political collapse and internal turmoil, he needs to establish stable relations with both Turkey and Azerbaijan. The tripartite cooperation secured through US mediation not only offers a path to economic recovery but also serves as a geopolitical shield for a regime surrounded by enemies.

In this context, President Ilham Aliyev's repeated warnings about the risk of Armenia falling into deep political and economic isolation should not be dismissed as mere rhetoric. Aliyev's strategic reading of Armenia's internal weaknesses and the broader geopolitical landscape of the region has proven accurate. If Armenia opposes the Zangezur Corridor project, which is supported by the United States and Israel, it will not only lose the support of global powers but also face direct retaliation through internal instability. This retaliation will likely take the form of a coup carried out by the same network of clerics, oligarchs, and paramilitary actors who have begun to undermine Armenia's political order, with the support of Russia.

Aliyev's prediction regarding Yerevan's isolation is therefore based on a harsh geopolitical reality: Armenia cannot oppose Trump-Israel's regional vision without paying the price of regime change. In this sense, Aliyev is not only right, but also prescient. His assessment is based on a cool-headed analysis of the current power dynamics and the mechanisms of regional reorganisation.

As Armenia stands on the brink of transformation towards regional reintegration or deeper isolation, the lessons learned from civil-military conflicts are gaining great importance. This moment reflects other crisis points in global geopolitics, where internal instability has become a playground for external powers and neutrality is no longer an option.

As renowned geopolitical strategist and civil-military relations expert Edward N. Luttwak puts it:

“In modern geopolitics, a state that hesitates at the crossroads does not merely fall behind; it is torn apart by those who dare to choose its path.”

For Armenia, the Zangezur Corridor is that crossroads. And the time to choose has come.

The Political Role of the Church and the Rise of Bagrat Galstanyan

Despite being constitutionally separated from the state, the Armenian Apostolic Church has significant socio-political influence in Armenia and among the diaspora in countries such as Russia, France, Lebanon, and the United States.

The Church's statements on national issues, particularly the Karabakh issue, carry more weight than those of opposition politicians.

One of the church's leading figures, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, emerged as a strong voice of opposition. In 2023, Catholicos II Garegin publicly criticised Pashinyan's policy of reconciliation with Azerbaijan, accusing the Prime Minister of abandoning Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). These statements were echoed by Galstanyan, who has since led street protests and founded the ‘Vatan için Tavush’ movement, also known as the ‘Holy Struggle.’

Initially perceived as a social protest, the Holy Struggle quickly evolved into an organised political movement. However, according to the Armenian National Security Committee, the group is alleged to have begun planning an insurrection.

Coup Allegations and Terrorist Plans

Bagrat Galstanyan and his movement are under investigation for allegedly planning to overthrow the government through coordinated acts of sabotage and civil unrest. Security officials claim that between January and May 2025, the Holy Struggle mobilised over 1,000 participants with the aim of destabilising the country.

The alleged plans include:

● Using nail-studded devices (code name ‘Stars’) to block traffic

● Organising large-scale road closures and fake traffic accidents

● Launching cyber attacks on government websites

● Cutting power lines and communication networks

● Procuring explosive and fire-starting materials

Security forces claim that the plans aim to plunge the capital into chaos, weaken the government, and bring down the regime. Maps of Yerevan with critical infrastructure marked have been found. Officials say the rapid shift from protest to alleged insurgency reflects a strategic convergence of religion, nationalism, and political opposition.

Strategic Implications: A Divided Country Amid Regional Realignment

This internal state-church conflict must be assessed in light of Armenia's broader geopolitical posture. The rejection of the Zangezur Corridor and resistance to integration efforts brokered by the US have pitted Armenia against leading regional and global actors, including Turkey, Israel, and the US. As Yerevan becomes increasingly diplomatically isolated, internal fissures are deepening, and religious institutions are becoming both the symbolic and operational centre of resistance.

In this context, President Ilham Aliyev's warning that Armenia's isolation will deepen is not exaggerated; it reflects a broader strategic foresight. Armenia faces the risk of being encircled through diplomatic marginalisation from the outside and civil unrest and opposition from clerics who could gain support from external actors such as Russia.

While Prime Minister Pashinyan pursues a secular-nationalist agenda aimed at modernising Armenia and distancing it from entrenched institutional power structures, critics argue that this agenda is eliminating the last vestiges of the country's traditional identity. The outcome of this conflict could determine whether Armenia will become a fully integrated participant in the new Eurasian corridors or a fragmented state torn between old loyalties and new alliances.

Anna Hakobyan, wife of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, has recently taken an unusual and confrontational role in the intensifying church-state conflict in Armenia. Her statements, particularly on social media, have sparked widespread debate. Hakobyan made a striking move by describing Catholicos Karekin II as the country's ‘leading mafia boss.’ This comment sparked significant reactions from both religious institutions and civil society.

Perhaps his most provocative statement was his use of the Armenian word ‘chulan,’ which traditionally means “basement” or ‘junk storage.’ He applied this term metaphorically to Armenian churches, claiming that these ‘chulans’ no longer represent the people's faith but have instead become corrupt structures dominated by shadowy dealings.

As expected, his words sparked sharp reactions. Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, a leading figure in the church, described his remarks as a direct attack on religious values and freedom of belief. Prominent legal experts also joined the debate. Lawyer Ara Zohrabyan filed an official complaint with the Anti-Corruption Commission, alleging that Prime Minister Pashinyan and his wife had violated constitutional boundaries by weakening the Armenian Apostolic Church, a constitutionally recognised institution. He emphasised that Armenian law obliges state officials to respect the church and remain impartial.

Political analyst Zoyan Levonisyan said that this crisis was not a sudden development, but rather a continuation of the long-standing separation between church and state that began with Pashinyan's rise to power in 2018. At that time, public dissatisfaction with Catholicos II Karekin was growing, particularly due to allegations of corruption. There were even rumours that Pashinyan wanted to appoint a new religious leader. It was alleged that Pashinyan had proposed that Catholicos Aram I of the Great House of Cilicia take over the leadership of the entire Armenian Apostolic Church. This proposal was categorically rejected and led to a major internal crisis within the church.

This rejection led to a temporary truce between Pashinyan and Catholicos II Karekin. However, this fragile balance was shattered following the 2022 Karabakh War. After the war, the Armenian Apostolic Church began to align itself increasingly with the political opposition and openly supported former presidents Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan.

Today, Archbishop Galstanyan has emerged as the leader of the anti-Pashinyan protest movement and has further politicised the religious institution. Levonisyan argues that the church has lost a lot in this conflict.

The church enjoys significant privileges, including tax exemptions, property ownership, and legal protections. Pashinyan believes that these privileges should be re-evaluated. He argues that the church should remain neutral and not interfere in politics.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is not only a religious institution but also one of the cornerstones of Armenia's cultural and national identity. Approximately 97.5% of Armenia's population belongs to this church. Its apostolic identity stems from the belief that it was founded by Saint Thaddeus and Saint Bartholomew, two of Jesus' apostles. The spiritual centre of the church is located in Vagharshapat, in the Armavir province of Armenia, known as the Holy See of Etchmiadzin. This province, renamed in 1995, was historically known as Sardarabad and was established during the reign of Hussein Ali Khan, the last khan of the Erivan Khanate, making it a region with significant Azerbaijani-Turkish heritage.

Thus, the modern spiritual centre of the Armenian Church is situated in a region historically linked to the Azerbaijani Turks, further complicating the national narrative.

Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan's ‘Holy Struggle’ movement has received significant support from political groups affiliated with former presidents Kocharyan and Sargsyan, both known for their pro-Russian stance. During their administrations, Armenia's military doctrine became increasingly dependent on Moscow.

Important decisions such as the establishment of joint military bases with Russia, membership in the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organisation) and the deployment of Russian forces on Armenia's borders were taken under their leadership. These administrations also witnessed the rapid rise of oligarchic structures closely linked to Russian business interests.

Armenian billionaires living in Russia, such as Samvel Karapetyan, have played an important role in financing political activities and shaping the media landscape. The Armenian Apostolic Church, long seen as one of Moscow's soft power tools, has historically benefited from these ties. Pashinyan is aware of these dynamics and has made efforts to reduce Moscow's influence over the church.

Despite these efforts, internal political dynamics appear to favour Pashinyan. The opposition lacks broad-based support, and the old Karabakh-centred elite has largely lost its political capital. As a result, the likelihood of a Moscow-backed regime change through these traditional actors has been significantly reduced.

In this context, the Armenian Apostolic Church remains one of Russia's last levers of influence in Armenia's internal affairs. The current conflict between the government and the church should be seen not only as an internal struggle over secularism, but as a larger geopolitical manoeuvre at the heart of the Armenian state, where religion, nationalism and external influences collide.

Russia's Shadow in the Chaos in Armenia: The Karapetyan Case, Church Politics and the Pashinyan-Erdoğan Meeting

Following the latest coup attempt in Armenia, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan made a cryptic but meaningful statement: "The pieces of the puzzle are coming together.

With every passing minute, the picture is becoming clearer." Although Russia is not explicitly named, the subtext of Pashinyan's words clearly points to Moscow. He is referring to a network of central political, religious and financial actors who are orchestrating the turmoil in Armenia, and he is implying, indirectly but in a very layered way, that Russia is deeply involved in the country's internal affairs.

At the centre of this geopolitical puzzle is Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, who has significant business interests in Russia and close ties to the Kremlin. Karapetyan is a major financial backer of the Armenian Apostolic Church, particularly Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, who has been prominent in the recent protests. His arrest by Armenian authorities sent shock waves through Moscow. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov responded cautiously, emphasising the ‘importance of compliance with the law’ and stressing that Russia remains ‘a friend and stable partner’ of Armenia. This diplomatic language subtly conveyed pressure on Yerevan.

Pashinyan further hardened his rhetoric by posting veiled accusations against Karapetyan on social media:

‘We can't even say who is behind the power cuts. The great philanthropist, the tireless transfer lord, the Monte Cristo of our time. He doesn't care about ENA or its subscribers.’

The power cuts mentioned in Pashinyan's post are believed to be linked to sabotage operations carried out by the so-called ‘Holy Struggle Movement,’ which Pashinyan claims is financed by Karapetyan. The sarcastic epithet ‘great philanthropist’ highlights Karapetyan's duplicitous image: on the one hand, a philanthropist and donor to religious causes, on the other, a financier of chaos and civil unrest.

Through the holding company Tashir Group, he controls approximately 80% of Armenia's electricity distribution network via the Armenian Electricity Networks (ENA). By portraying Karapetyan as the person who controls and undermines the country's energy in both the literal and figurative sense, Pashinyan depicts him as an oligarch linked to the Kremlin who uses infrastructure as a weapon for political purposes.

In this context, the Armenian parliament recently passed a law to nationalise key assets of Karapetyan's holding company. This move directly targets Karapetyan's influence. It is more than an internal political decision; it is a geopolitical stance against Russian influence.

Moscow has long viewed Karapetyan as a soft power tool that serves as a bridge between the Kremlin and Armenian clergy, economic elites, and the political opposition. Karapetyan's arrest significantly increases the risks in the deteriorating Russia-Armenia relations.

At the same time, Pashinyan is pursuing an unprecedented diplomatic realignment. His recent meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was the first high-level diplomatic contact between Armenia and Turkey in decades. Held after Erdoğan's trilateral meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, the meeting signals that Turkey and Azerbaijan are pursuing a coordinated strategy to manage normalisation efforts with Yerevan.

The meeting addressed issues such as the reopening of border crossings, the establishment of full diplomatic relations, and the deepening of economic cooperation. Pashinyan also visited religious sites such as the Holy Mother of God Cathedral and the Sultanahmet Mosque and held consultations with Armenian religious leaders in Istanbul. These symbolic steps signalled a more open and conciliatory approach.

This change deeply unsettled Russia, which views Ankara's growing role in the South Caucasus as a strategic threat. However, faced with Israel's growing influence in the region and Tehran's geopolitical encirclement, Moscow is trying to maintain its influence through covert means, while refraining from responding openly.

Shortly after the Ankara meeting, a coup attempt took place in Armenia. Many see this political turmoil as the first concrete result of Yerevan's move away from Russia and towards regional reintegration led by Turkey and Azerbaijan.

While there is no direct evidence that Russia orchestrated these events, the structure of the elite networks of businessmen, religious leaders, and energy companies that moved against Pashinyan points to hybrid intervention. The Kremlin may not be pulling all the strings, but its fingerprints are becoming increasingly visible.

Conclusion: Strategic Reckoning at Armenia's Geopolitical Crossroads

The Zangezur Corridor is not merely a proposed transit route, but a strategic litmus test for the geopolitical future of the South Caucasus.

For Armenia, this is no longer merely a matter of territorial sovereignty or transportation logistics; it is a question of national survival in a changing global order.

Russia's footprints, particularly through the mobilisation of oligarchic networks, religious figures, and economic sabotage, are becoming increasingly evident in Armenia's internal turmoil. The arrest of Samvel Karapetyan, Anna Hakobyan's politically charged statements, and the aggressive stance of Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan are not isolated incidents. These are visible components of Russia's broader initiative to orchestrate regime change in Yerevan. Prime Minister Pashinyan, who is well aware of these manoeuvres, has chosen to reorient Armenia's strategic stance not out of ideological conviction but out of geopolitical necessity.

Faced with the threat of a Kremlin-backed coup and the erosion of internal sovereignty, Pashinyan was forced to support US President Donald Trump's Zangezur initiative. By backing the so-called ‘Trump International Peace and Development Corridor,’ Pashinyan aims to secure US protection, weaken Russia's influence, and prevent the collapse of his government.

However, this shift in direction will also have consequences. The corridor project is closely linked to Israel's geopolitical objectives, particularly the strategic encirclement and isolation of Iran. Israel views the Zangezur route as a geopolitical artery that will sever Iran's ties with the Caucasus and Russia and become part of a broader regional containment doctrine. This puts Yerevan in a delicate position: opposing the corridor would mean alienating both Washington and Tel Aviv; supporting it would provoke Tehran and Moscow.

Indeed, the Zangezur peace agreement was signed not immediately after the Second Karabakh War, but after the 12-day Israel-Iran war, a short but decisive conflict that reshaped regional balances. The signing of the agreement was deliberately delayed until the outcome of the war became clear, as Israel sought to secure its northern flank by encircling Iran in the Caucasus. In this geopolitical calculation, the agreement reached between Azerbaijan and Armenia on the Zangezur Corridor became a vital component of Israel's security strategy. This alliance was formalised under Trump's mediation, and for Pashinyan, the agreement was not only a diplomatic breakthrough but also a lifeline that helped him escape an impending coup in his country.

Not wanting to enter into conflict with Israel, whose influence in Washington and intelligence cooperation in the region are indispensable, Pashinyan found himself in a narrowing corridor. To prevent political collapse and internal turmoil, he needs to establish stable relations with both Turkey and Azerbaijan. The tripartite cooperation secured through US mediation not only offers a path to economic recovery but also serves as a geopolitical shield for a regime surrounded by enemies.

In this context, President Ilham Aliyev's repeated warnings about the risk of Armenia falling into deep political and economic isolation should not be dismissed as mere rhetoric. Aliyev's strategic reading of Armenia's internal weaknesses and the broader geopolitical landscape of the region has proven accurate. If Armenia opposes the Zangezur Corridor project, which is supported by the United States and Israel, it will not only lose the support of global powers but will also be exposed to direct retaliation through internal instability. This retaliation will likely take the form of a coup carried out by the same network of clerics, oligarchs, and paramilitary actors who have begun to undermine Armenia's political order, with the support of Russia.

Aliyev's prediction regarding Yerevan's isolation is therefore based on a harsh geopolitical reality: Armenia cannot oppose Trump-Israel's regional vision without paying the price of regime change. In this sense, Aliyev is not only right, but also prescient. His assessment is based on a cool-headed analysis of the current power dynamics and the mechanisms of regional reorganisation.

As Armenia stands on the brink of transformation towards regional reintegration or deeper isolation, the lessons learned from civil-military conflicts are gaining great importance. This moment reflects other crisis points in global geopolitics, where internal instability has become a playground for external powers and neutrality is no longer an option.

As renowned geopolitical strategist and civil-military relations expert Edward N. Luttwak puts it:

“In modern geopolitics, a state that hesitates at the crossroads does not merely fall behind; it is torn apart by those who dare to choose its path.”

For Armenia, the Zangezur Corridor is that crossroads. And the time to choose has come.