Government 2021-2026 In the report on the progress and results of the 2025 implementation of the activity plan, the fact that the leading international rating agencies did not lower Armenia’s rating is presented as a serious achievement.

On page 25 of the report it is stated: “In 2025, three leading international rating agencies reaffirmed Armenia’s sovereign ratings, emphasizing the country’s macroeconomic stability. In particular, Moody’s maintained the Ba3 rating with a stable outlook, while Fitch and Standard & Poor’s reaffirmed the BB- rating, changing the outlook from stable to positive.

However, the reality hidden under these formulations is much more modest than the RA government tries to present. 2025 According to Moody’s, RA sovereign rating was Ba3, while in 2017 it was ‘B1’, just one rank lower. It’s a similar picture for Fitch. 2025 the rating was “BB-“, and in 2017 – “B”, which is again only one position lower than the current level. In other words, in more than 7 years, not a qualitative progress was recorded, but an almost insignificant shift.

Furthermore, both Moody’s Ba3 and Fitch’s BB- ratings are ‘non-investment grade’, ‘speculative’. This fact itself contradicts the assessments made about “stability”. if the country had a really solid and predictable economic environment, it would be expressed by a higher “investment” rating.

In the Armenian reality, there are a number of factors that directly affect the ratings, and the neglect of which is difficult to cover up with “stability”. First of all, the ongoing uncertainty of the security environment, tensions and the resulting economic risks, which remain a key concern for investors. Second, institutional weaknesses: lack of trust in the judicial system, problems of legal predictability, repeated accusations of selective justice.

Third, the structural vulnerability of the economy, the significant dependence on external factors and a limited number of sectors, which makes any external shock a systemic risk. Finally, issues of public administration effectiveness: frequently changing political messages, lack of long-term strategies, and lack of clear accountability mechanisms. All these circumstances not only restrain the growth of the rating, but also explain why the unchanged indicator is presented as a success.

As a result, it turns out that more than seven years of activity of the government formed after 2018 has led to only one degree of improvement, without systemic progress. This indicates that the implemented “reforms” did not create a reliable institutional basis, nor a security and economic environment that could actually increase the country’s credit standing.

In this context, the RA government’s approach is particularly telling: the achievement is not progress, but avoidance of deterioration. When the country remains at the same “speculative” level for years, “stability” is more reminiscent of staying put than development. And here a natural question arises. if this is presented as success, then how to characterize stagnation or regression?

—