Weaponizing Security: Dr. Kopalyan, EVN Security Report, and Armenia’s Political Discourse
BY RAFFY ARDHALDJIAN
Dr. Nerses Kopalyan in his latest EVN Security Report warns of an impending Russian campaign to subvert Armenia’s 2026 elections. While concerns about foreign interference are legitimate, the selective framing of such threats deserves closer scrutiny—particularly when it risks stoking polarization in Armenia.
Russia’s subversion risks are real. But they are not unique. The same concern applies to the substantial Western investment in Armenia’s civil society sector—with the United States alone providing over $2 billion in assistance since 1992, including significant funding through USAID’s democracy promotion programs, National Endowment for Democracy grants, and European Union partnership initiatives. If we are to define hybrid operations and information warfare so broadly, then we must ask: why has this parallel form of influence not been considered just as threatening to Armenia’s sovereignty and democratic integrity?
Dr. Kopalyan’s approach too easily maps a Cold War-era binary onto Armenia’s strategic challenges. But Armenia is not caught in some ideological tug-of-war between West and East. It is a small, landlocked state in a dangerous neighborhood, forced to navigate its security and development interests across multiple poles of influence. Russia is one of Armenia’s largest trading partners, a longstanding energy supplier, and Armenia has hosted Russian military assets on its soil for decades. These facts do not make Armenia “pro-Russian”—they make it realistic.
The real threat to Armenia’s security is not its multi-vector foreign policy. It is the delayed modernization of its armed forces, the lack of a credible deterrence strategy, and the failure of successive governments to build institutional resilience across the defense and intelligence sectors. These are structural issues that cannot be solved by wishful thinking about Western integration alone.
More worryingly, the securitization of domestic political life—where dissent is equated with disloyalty—undermines the democratic foundations Armenia claims to protect. One must ask: who benefits when opposition figures, media, or civic voices are framed as vectors of foreign manipulation?
It is high time the editorial team at EVN Report reflect more carefully on the implications of consistently publishing narratives that frame political opposition through a national security lens. Dr. Kopalyan is, of course, entitled to his opinions. But conflating legitimate dissent or critique with external subversion risks undermining the very democratic principles Armenia seeks to uphold. In a pluralistic society, political contestation is not a vulnerability to be neutralized—it is a strength to be safeguarded.
Armenia doesn’t need security consultants from the University of Las Vegas to police its discourse or frame its political debates. It needs trust in its own democratic institutions and the maturity to hold space for differing visions of sovereignty—without turning every disagreement into a battleground of hybrid warfare.
Raffy Ardhaldjian is a graduate of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, a dual citizen of Armenia, and a proud third-generation member of the Founding Party of the Republic of Armenia, which Dr. Kopalyan so casually dismisses.
