Russian President Vladimir Putin referred to Armenia’s European aspirations, declaring that Armenia’s plans to join the European Union “require special consideration”.

“We have discussed this with Prime Minister Pashinyan more than once, and we do not see anything special. In fact, and he will confirm, I have already told him several times and now I can publicly repeat: we will support everything that is beneficial to the Armenian people,” Putin said, continuing, if this or that decision is beneficial to the Armenian people, Russia will not be against it.

At the same time, the Russian President pointed out some circumstances, which, according to him, are important both for him and for his partners. “For example, our trade turnover with Armenia has decreased now, it was much more last year, the year before, but still $7 billion in 2025. If we take into account that the country’s GDP is 29 billion, it is a serious amount, and Armenia receives significant advantages within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union,” Putin said. According to him, it would be right to take a decision as soon as possible, for example, to hold a referendum, in relation to the population of Armenia, its citizens, or in relation to Russia as the main economic partner. He believes that it is none of their business, but continues that it would be fundamentally logical to hold a referendum and ask the citizens of Armenia what their choice would be. “According to that, we would also draw appropriate conclusions and go the way of a soft, intelligent and mutually beneficial divorce,” Putin stated.

He said that he proposed to discuss Armenia’s plans related to the European Union at the next EAEU summit. However, Pashinyan announced that he will not participate in the session of the Supreme Council of EAEU to be held in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, on May 28-29. The Prime Minister explained it with a campaign. Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan will replace him at the session.

Spread in parallel EU Enlargement Commissioner Martha Kosi reference to RA aspirations. Kos noted that Europe will support Armenia in its aspirations to become a member of the EU.

“Only the people of Armenia can decide their future. The last meeting of the European political community, as well as the EU-Armenia summit, showed the way they want to go, and Europe will support them,” said Kos.

During today’s briefing, Pashinyan announced that RA will not put such an issue on the agenda until there is no need to hold elections. “I don’t agree with inappropriate wording either. I also had occasion to say in the National Assembly that we sometimes confuse interstate relations with marriage. In interstate relations, the Republic of Armenia is guided by interstate logic, and we are an equal member of the EAEU, just like other members, as long as we are a EAEU member, we fully participate in all decision-making. Until the need arises, we are not going to ask such a question. we will hold a referendum when it is necessary,” Pashinyan said.

He emphasized once again, “we have not had, do not have and will not have the goal of harming the interests of Russia.”

“We will continue to be guided by the state interests of the Republic of Armenia and we will continue to deepen and develop our relations with the Russian Federation with the understanding that an inevitable transformation is taking place in those relations,” Pashinyan noted, continuing to deepen our future relations with the European Union and moving according to the logic of the law on starting the EU membership process, that is, continuing the democratic reforms.

Vladimir Putin’s use of the term “soft and intelligent bridegroom” is not accidental. it testifies to Moscow’s clear strategy. If in the past Russia tried to use certain levers to stop Armenia’s drift towards the West, now it is playing an “open cards” game, putting Yerevan in front of an ultimatum. The proposal to hold a referendum is also remarkable, by which the Russian authorities make it clear that the government should not make a single decision on this matter.

With these references, Moscow makes it clear that the period of “sitting on two chairs” is over, and economic privileges are directly linked to political loyalty.

Տնտեսական գործոնը՝ որպես ճնշման հիմնական գործիք, մնում է Կրեմլի ձեռքին։

Putin’s mention of RA GDP and trade turnover figures is a warning about the possible economic price that Armenia will have to pay for EU membership candidacy. In this context, the intention to discuss the issue of Armenia at the next EAEU summit can be considered as the application of the “collective pressure” mechanism, where Moscow will try to show Yerevan’s isolation through the other members of the union, while maintaining the European vector.

Pashinyan’s government is trying to delay the final moment of “either-or” as much as possible, hoping to maintain economic ties with Russia in a situation where European integration has no clear perspective. However, Pashinyan’s absence from the Astana summit once again highlights the deepening of the political divide, which is already difficult to hide even under the most flexible diplomatic formulations.

As for the future course, Armenia is entering a difficult phase of foreign policy, where Russia is putting questions to Armenia at the highest level. The EU, represented by Martha Kos, promises support, but the tools and speed of this support are still disproportionate to the challenges that may arise as a result of even a so-called “soft rapprochement” with Russia. According to experts, Armenia will not be able to diversify its economy and security system in a short period of time, so the “moment of choice” pushed by Moscow can turn into a source of internal political and economic shocks, taking into account the presence of Russian leverage.

The situation suggests that in the coming months, the developments surrounding the elections for Armenia will be sharp in a situation where Armenia is preparing for national elections.  The “intelligent divorce” offered by Russia is just a formulation, the Russian leader makes it clear that European integration will deprive Armenia of economic privileges and advantages, that is, essential resources, which are obtained due to Armenia’s EAEU membership, cheap gas prices, and a number of other privileges.

Moscow makes it clear that Armenia may be deprived of vital economic resources, which, according to calculations, should force Yerevan to either maintain its current foreign policy line, going through major challenges, or reconsider its foreign policy ambitions. However, the remarkable thing is that Yerevan perfectly understands that Armenia will not have a prospect of European integration in the foreseeable future. That is the reason why Pashinyan talks about the need to carry out reforms, without clearly formulating Armenia’s aspiration for EU membership. This, as a goal, is not interesting to Brussels, therefore, Yerevan does not raise the topic either.

This harsh rhetoric of Putin follows the 8th summit of the European Political Community, which was hosted in Armenia in 2026. on May 4. This was the first time when the entire European elite and the Secretary General of NATO gathered in the capital of a CSTO member country. Putin’s reaction days after the summit aims to neutralize the political effect left by that event and show that the “real” decision-maker in the region is still Russia.

Another crucial factor in 2026. Parliamentary elections to be held on June 7. Armenia is in the hot pre-election phase, and the Kremlin is trying to make the issue of the foreign political vector a part of the pre-election discourse.  The EPC summit in Yerevan became the point that forced Moscow to open ultimatums, making it clear that the price to be paid for the European perspective would be significant.

—

The Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, Ruben Rubinyan, a member of the CP, recently submitted the declaration of property, income, expenses and interests for 2025 to the Corruption Prevention Commission.

According to the declaration, the ruling deputy started and ended the accounting year with two real estates: an apartment and a parking lot, which he bought in 2024 and manages alone.

During the year, Ruben Rubinyan purchased securities from “Armeconombank” OJSC, the value of which at the end of the year was 6,059,664 drams in one case, and 4,091,492 drams in the other.

Bank deposits also had the following movement during the year. 2.5 million drams available at the beginning of the year doubled at the end of the year, and another deposit of 5 million drams was reduced to zero at the end of the year, the balance of the bank accounts was 2,784,178 drams at the beginning of the year, and 1,453,247.31 drams at the end of the year.

Ruben Rubinyan’s income of about 23 million drams (22,847,308.9) for the reporting year was formed from the salary of 17 million 886,240 drams received from the National Assembly and or equivalent payments, from the 549,339 drams he received from Inecobank, which was mentioned as interest received for loans or bank deposits and other compensation received from the same bank. 80,915.9 drams from other incomes, 2,830,814 drams from the income tax refund received from the Ministry of Finance and 1,500,000 drams from the loan (loan) received from “HAYECONOMBANK” OJSC.

As of December 31 of the reporting year, the balance of the principal amount of loans and borrowings was AMD 31,932,332.6. during the year, he directed 5,236,971.4 drams to repay the loan.

Rubinyan did not mention cash.

Rubinyan’s wife, Mariam Haji-Hakobyan, did not declare real estate, but the property of the ML mining development company In the declaration, a loan of 13,291,053 drams was mentioned, and in another line, the object of the mortgage was the apartment and the amount of the principal amount of the loan of 12,970,311 drams.

His income of 4,745,527 drams for the reporting year was formed from 414,600 drams of other income received from the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, 1,185,507 drams from the income tax refund received from Finnakh, 254 thousand drams from other incomes received from an individual, and 2,891,420 drams from the salary and or equivalent payments received from the National Assembly (we had the opportunity to mention earlier, that he also works in the National Assembly).

One of the two bank deposits of Rubinyan’s wife was 1,266 dollars at the beginning of the year, which slightly increased to 1,417.25 dollars at the end of the year, and the dram deposit, 1,560,000 drams, was preserved at the end of the year.

Mariam Haji-Hakobyan’s bank account balances and cash have also slightly increased at the end of the year.

The balance of bank accounts became 642,607.4 AMD from 249,239.53 AMD.

And the cash amount: 350,000 drams – 450,000 drams, 900 dollars – 1200 dollars.

—

Pashinyan’s government is once again revealing its true face and priorities. at a time when the country is burdened with agricultural problems, the government takes the funds intended for “supporting the investment projects implemented in the livestock sector” and directs them to another PR event of the government.

At the May 7 session of the government, it was decided to allocate 684 million drams for holding the “Concours Mondial de Brussels 2026” international wine tasting-competition in Armenia.as we have already mentioned, reducing the support of livestock investment programs to the same extent. Moreover, the initiative to redistribute funds from this program belongs to the RA Ministry of Economy.

According to the data presented to the government session, the event will be held in Armenia in 2026. May 19-23 K. in the sports concert complex named after Demirchyan. About 400 guests from 65 countries are expected, including journalists, bloggers, sommeliers and experts. More than 8,000 wines from more than 60 countries will be presented at the tasting competition. A B2B (business to business) meeting will be organized for 120 wholesale buyers and 50 local producers.

The Concours Mondial de Brussels 2026 is undoubtedly one of the most prestigious international wine competitions, which has been held over the years in countries from Belgium to Croatia, Mexico and China. The problem is not the rating of the event, but the incomprehensible and questionable waste of state funds in its name.

The most important question here is: why will the same event cost more than 1.5 million euros (684 million drams) for taxpayers in Armenia, when in other countries its main state organizational costs usually amounted to three times less approximately 400-500 thousand euros, and never exceeded 600 thousand euros։

Moreover, if in other countries these costs were planned for a jury of about 300 people (for transportation, hotel, food and recreation costs, which make up a significant part of the total costs), then in the case of Armenia, according to Economy Minister Gevorg Papoyan, the number of the jury and main participants is around 200.

In other words, the participants are fewer, but the amount is several times larger. The question arises, where will that difference go?

There is no detailed explanation in the decision as to what exactly the hundreds of millions will be spent on. How much will be the fee for conducting the competition? What are the costs of hotel, transportation, PR, advertising or information campaigns? The public is once again faced with the “trust us” principle, which has already become commonplace for the government, when it comes to huge state funds.

In other words, during the reign of Nikol Pashinyan, we are once again dealing with a situation when the state is ready to pay three times more to organize an international show, without presenting the clear structure of the costs to the public.

The choice of venue is also a separate issue. In international practice, halls with natural lighting are chosen for such tasting-competitions, because the evaluation of wine color and shades is an important component of the professional process. However, K. was elected in Armenia. Sports concert complex named after Demirchyan, an expensive, demonstrative, but obviously inconvenient area from a professional point of view. This once again shows that the priority for the government is not the quality organization of the event, but showing “scales”. It is not excluded that under the name of similar international events, a part of state funds is simply “written off” to be used for pre-election purposes. There is no doubt that, even if the current government does not take advantage of this “opportunity”, there is a clear pre-election calculation in this story. international guests, high-level events, media noise, selfies with beautiful views… All of these will naturally be used as pre-election propaganda, especially considering the dates of the event.

The government will undoubtedly try to convince the public that it is about raising Armenia’s international reputation. However, the reputation of the state is not built by expensive shows and demonstration events. It is built with transparent management, accountable and responsible government and justified spending of state funds. When money is cut from agricultural programs in order for the government to implement an international PR event, the public has the right not only to ask questions, but also to suspect that the real goal is not the benefit of Armenia, but the political reproduction of the government.

Until the government presents a clear and detailed report on the expenditure of every dram, until it explains how it turned out that in the case of Armenia, the organization of the event is three times more expensive than usual, this story will continue to be perceived not as a national success project and an opportunity for Armenian winemakers to enter the international market, but as another expensive government propaganda campaign paid for by taxpayers.

—

After the official start of the pre-election campaign for the upcoming parliamentary elections on June 7, Nikol Pashinyan left for Syunik marz with his teammates. In the border village of Kornidzor, Nikol Pashinyan again referred to the subject of Artsakh, saying that he really wants to talk about Kornidzor-peace relations.

“We made a very difficult decision and the essence of that decision was that we, as a state and people, stop the Karabakh movement, because the analysis of the previous period showed us that the factors related to the Karabakh movement of the previous period were used to stop the progress of our country.

We are accused of losing territories, I want to say clearly that we have not lost territories, because those territories, which in reality we believed that they belong to us, those territories not only did not belong to us, but were also used to weaken our right to the territories that actually belong to us. Our state has been trapped since its creation,” said Nikol Pashinyan.

Former head of Aravus, head of the “Aprelu Yerkir” faction of the Tegh community council, from Argam Hovsepyan We wondered how Nikol Pashinyan’s statement was received in Syunik, did the residents raise the issue of the occupied territories of Syunik?

“When the leader of your country stands up and says, “Karabakh was never ours,” and the crowd applauds, I don’t consider those applauding to be from Syun. If the head of the country renounces his land, that is the holy land, what kind of leader is he? I cannot accept such a person as the head of the country.” 168.amArgam Hovsepyan said in a conversation with

He also stressed that, of course, Syunik citizens raised the issue of the occupied territories of Syunik, a normal Syunik citizen cannot but be concerned about this issue.

“Of course, they raised all the problems, it’s not that his supporters come to talk, but the real Syuntsi is concerned, but they don’t allow him to come, it doesn’t mean that they don’t talk about the problems, but the answers, as always, were disappointing,” emphasized Argam Hovsepyan.

As for Nikol Pashinyan’s other statement that “Syunik is a region of peace, there should not be a note of melancholy next to the name of Syunik”, our interlocutor remarked: who has seen such peace?

“Our compatriots are in prisons in Baku, they were illegally convicted, part of our sovereign territories are under the occupation of the enemy, what kind of peace are they talking about now, what is that peace?” If this is peace, then I don’t understand anything. My Armenian, compatriot, brother is illegally sentenced to life in prison in Baku, I don’t want such peace. Or does he want to establish peace at the expense of our lands?

As a citizen of this country, I am very disappointed by all this, I expect that our Syunik will take an active part in the upcoming elections, so that things will change in that country,” stressed Argam Hovsepyan.

—

aravot.am-writes: “Go, ask that citizen what would have happened to him if he had not shouted “traitor” or sexual insults to the Mayor of the Center Gagik Beglaryan or the head of the Football Federation Ruben Hayrapetyan, but had simply looked at the citizen,” RA NA Speaker Alen Simonyan was irritated by the question of “24 News” about spitting on the citizen.

Referring to these statements at the request of “Aravot”, Ruben Hayrapetyan said:

“I’ve already said it once and I’ll confirm it again: Alen Simonyan probably thinks that I’ll hug him from behind, but I’m not the type of person who hugs him from behind. I like to hug women. God willing, we will meet one day, and I will behave as his beloved oligarch behaved with him.”

—

On the first Republic Day of Armenia, May 28, Nikol Pashinyan will direct the attention of the citizens of Armenia to Republic Square. a weapons show-report will be organized.

On May 11, in a briefing with journalists within the framework of the campaign, he stated that all citizens should be in the Republic Square on May 28 and see with their own eyes the weapons purchased in recent years and record the army of new logic created by their government. We have written more than once about what this implies in terms of content, so we will not touch on it this time.

Of course, any acquisition of armaments that can contribute to the increase of the combat capability of the army is gratifying, but another question is whether any purchase is the result of complex calculations. In other words, are the assessments made from the point of view of the capabilities to face the expected threats and challenges in the long term, or from the exclusion of war?

The other day, during one of the pre-election meetings, RA Defense Minister Suren Papikyan spoke to journalists about the issue of considering the non-classical military parade to be held on May 28 as a mere pre-election event.

“But if it’s all about the work we do, and if it helps any pre-election process, should we give up the work we do?” Of course, we will not refuse. We will show the extent to which we have done work in recent years, because it is a report. We will show all the weapons and military equipment that we have never shown before. The funds acquired during the administration of Prime Minister Pashinyan, which we did not have the opportunity to show to the public. But the main, significant volume refers to the years 2022-2025,” said the head of the defense department.

Does this mean that weapons purchased before 2022 will also be on display on May 28, or will Russian weapons be on display in addition to Indian and French weapons? TOR-M2KM systems, the structure headed by Papikyan did not consider the information requested by us subject to publication. But it is not excluded that the same information, for example, will be known through Nikol Pashinyan on the day of the military parade, let’s say, the relevant footage or information from the rehearsals will be published according to political expediency. Suffering has experience.

Yesterday, Nikol Pashinyan published a short episode of the weapons magazine experiment, where the Armenian-made “DEV-3” reconnaissance strike aircraft are presented, and Suren Papikyan published the footage of the French-made CAESAR self-propelled artillery systems from the military parade.

It should be noted that at the moment, Suren Papikyan and the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia have no intention of ensuring the participation of journalists in the rehearsals of the military parade. Moreover, before the start of the official campaign, a closed meeting was not organized with the Minister of Defense, when there are many professional questions that should be asked to Suren Papikyan, including those related to the purchase of weapons and the military parade.

Therefore, it is natural that only political and internal political conversations are circulating about military issues, and the main author of this is the authorities, Nikol Pashinyan. It is possible that they do not need narrow professional observations during the pre-election period, but only the evaluations of close experts and the admiring expressions of ordinary citizens far from military affairs.

Moreover, there are also good purchases in the armaments to be shown, but it does not change anything in the work of the defense department with the media.

And taking into account that the hero of the May 28 event will not be the army or even the defense minister, but the person of Nikol Pashinyan, is it possible that Pashinyan will decide this? How right or wrong we are in this matter will become clear on May 28, from the level of ensuring the presence of journalists accredited by the Ministry of Defense at the military parade.

For the sake of justice, we can still mention that a closed exhibition of locally produced and acquired weapons samples was properly organized for the media months ago by order of Suren Papikyan, but there was a ban on writing about what was seen.

Later, however, within the framework of the visit of the chief of defense staff of the Indian armed forces to Armenia, Suren Papikyan decided to publicize the samples of weapons produced by Armenia and India.

Specifically, General Anil Chauhan were presented Samples of Indian weapons acquired by Armenia, including the Akash-1S anti-aircraft missile system, the Pinaka rocket launcher, the MArG 155-BR/39 155mm/39 self-propelled howitzer on a 4×4 vehicle chassis, as well as Trajan 155mm towed howitzers manufactured by the Indian L

By the way, immediately after this, the Israeli magazine Globes «Armenia unveils suicide drone resembling IAI’s Harop» with the text article: published, where it is noted that Armenia presented the equivalent of the “Harop” kamikaze ATS developed by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), which caused dissatisfaction in Azerbaijan.

At the same time, Globes, referring to an Israeli defense industry official, hypothesizes that the drone production technology reached Armenia from India, especially when in the context of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Make in India” policy, the country requires foreign companies to transfer production lines and technological experience to them.

And since we are talking about Dragonfly‑3 produced by “DAVARO” company drone-kamikaze about, the company responded to the Israeli claims.

Later, the Azerbaijani side only joined the discussions that lasted for several days, and rather cautiously. After a while, the topic was closed.

Now, what about the accountability regarding the military achievements of Pashinyan’s government, which we have been constantly hearing about in recent months. In particular, during one of the pre-election meetings, Suren Papikyan stated again that compared to 2018, the defense expenses in 2025 were 1.1 billion dollars more, that they increased the expenses of the defense sector to 1 billion 700 million dollars instead of 640 million dollars.

“Only in the last 3 years, 5.4 times more was spent on armaments than in 20 years, 1998-2018,” he emphasized.

Earlier, Nikol Pashinyan too had said that $8 billion foreign debt increased because they bought weapons.

But when we tried to find out from the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia by means of written inquiries, how much the state debt increased just for the purchase of weapons, or how much money was spent on the purchase of new and modern weapons after 2022, Suren Papikyan refused to provide the requested information, although Pashinyan stated on one occasion that the opposition could be shown the newly purchased weapons along with the price tags.

“Did we buy weapons on debt? Yes, we bought weapons on debt. Why, because we needed a lot and all at once… Don’t you believe that you have the right? I say, let’s take it, show it, we can also stick price tags on it, which one is worth.” Pashinyan addressed the opposition MPs last fall.

In other words, the citizen does not have the right to know how much the government borrowed for armaments, which it is closing and will close. What accountability? And the RA Ministry of Defense to us? refused also provide data on which countries, apart from Russia, Armenia acquired weapons and military equipment before the 2018 revolution, and what exactly, etc.

P.S. Let’s add that a few days before the elections, on June 3-4, the RISE exhibition will be held at the Sports Concert Complex named after Karen Demirchyan, where mainly the samples of domestically produced weapons of recent years will be presented.

—

Recently, public-politician Suren Sahakyan shared on his Facebook page in a post in which, based on the methodology of distribution of mandates announced by the Central Electoral Commission, it was concluded that the votes of the forces that do not overcome the passing threshold in the NA elections are not distributed among the passing ones, but they do not participate in the calculation, and therefore, thus putting an end to the “pulverization of votes”, as the author of the post notes, “the thesis that is false, extremely destructive and has a real, negative impact on the elections”.

In his post, Suren Sahakyan correctly presented the methodology, but not the conclusion. The problem is purely logical.

Suppose 1 million citizens voted, and three forces overcame the threshold:

• Power 1: 35% (350 thousand votes)
• Strength 2: 25% (250 thousand votes)
• Strength 3: 15% (150 thousand votes)

The remaining 25% (250 thousand votes) went to those who did not pass the threshold.

If the mandates were distributed in proportion to the entire 1 million votes, the three powers would receive 35, 25 and 15 mandates, totaling 75. The remaining 25 mandates would simply remain unallocated.

But in reality, the calculation is made not on the basis of 1 million, but on the basis of 750,000 votes, only with the sum of those who passed the threshold. As a result, mandates become:

• Strength 1: 47 (12)
• Strength 2: 34 (9)
• Strength 3: 20 (5)

Increase: 26 mandates in total. These 26 mandates are the result of the proportional redistribution of 250,000 votes of those who did not win. Changing the basis of the calculation from 1 million to 750 thousand is mathematically equivalent to distributing those 250 thousand votes proportionally among those who won.

The author’s mistake is that he confuses two different things: calculation mechanism (how the numbers are obtained) and calculate the result (who gets how many mandates). Formally, the mechanism does not really “take” the votes of those who did not win and “do not add” to those who won. However, since the basis of calculation changes, the result is the same as in the case of direct redistribution. This is what is called “pollination of votes”.

The thesis about “pollination of votes” is not false. Often an attempt is made to present this topic as exclusively political manipulation, but in fact there is a clear mathematical logic here. In a proportional electoral system, each vote that is given to a force that has not overcome the transient threshold is effectively excluded from the distribution of mandates, but these votes do not disappear in a political vacuum: they turn into an additional advantage for the forces that have overcome the threshold.

But the biggest benefit from this advantage is obtained by the political power that occupies the first place, because this “bonus” is not distributed equally to everyone. The redistribution of mandates is carried out in proportion to the percentages received by the forces that have already passed, that is, the greater the main result of any force, the greater the share it receives at the expense of “lost” votes. The example given above is a clear proof of this: the force that received the most votes had an additional 12 mandates, and the one that passed the threshold with the fewest votes – 5 mandates.

In other words, if, for example, small political forces, realizing that they will not overcome the temporary threshold, enter the electoral struggle, the 0.5, 1, 2, 3 percent of the votes collected by them during the final calculation of the results EXCEPTIONALLY will create an additional advantage for the political force that received the most votes. This is the real basis of the “pollination of votes” thesis.

—