Countering Foreign Interference or Undermining Democratic Norms? The Case of Samvel Karapetyan

By Tigran Grigoryan and Aram Tadevosyan

On June 17, Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, number 928 on the Forbes list, criticized the Armenian government’s campaign against the church and stated: “Since I have always stood by the Armenian Church and the Armenian people, I will be directly involved. If the politicians fail, then we will participate in all of this in our own way.” His comments were immediately followed by a harsh response from Prime Minister Pashinyan, who wrote on Facebook:

“Why have the licentious ‘clergymen’ and their licentious ‘philanthropists’ become so active? No worries—we’ll neutralize them again. This time, permanently.”

Hours after this post, Armenia’s National Security Service (NSS) surrounded Karapetyan’s Yerevan mansion and conducted a search that lasted into the late hours of the night. The next day, it became clear that Karapetyan had been arrested and was facing criminal charges. The basis for prosecution was a public call allegedly made during a media interview to seize power and usurp the constitutional powers of the Armenian government through unauthorized means.

At the same time, Pashinyan announced his intention to nationalize the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA), a company owned by Karapetyan’s Tashir Group. ENA holds a monopoly over electricity distribution in Armenia and ranks among the top ten taxpayers in the country. Karapetyan acquired the company in 2017.

Pashinyan justified the decision to “return one of Armenia’s largest companies to the people” by claiming that ENA was being mismanaged—allegedly deliberately—to manufacture an artificial energy crisis and generate public discontent.

It was also revealed that the Public Services Regulatory Commission fined ENA 10 million AMD ($25.000) for “technical and commercial violations.” Meanwhile, the Food Safety Inspection Body launched investigations into 36 restaurant outlets of another Karapetyan-owned business, “Tashir Pizza” LLC.

Government loyalits justify these actions as part of efforts to counter Russian hybrid influence and to strengthen Armenia’s sovereignty. Given that Karapetyan is a prominent Russian businessman, it’s possible he is under the influence of the Russian authorities. Figures like Karapetyan can also be instrumentalized in domestic political struggles, especially with just a year remaining until parliamentary elections in Armenia.

Notably, Maria Zakharova, the official spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, and Vladimir Solovyov, one of the Kremlin’s top propagandists, immediately reacted to the developments against Karapetyan and attacked the Armenian government.

Nevertheless, even if the assumption that Karapetyan is serving Russia’s agenda in Armenia proves accurate, the methods employed by Pashinyan not only fail to counter potential hybrid influence on Armenia’s democratic development—they in fact actively serve its objectives.

The core aim of Russia’s recent foreign influence campaigns has been to sow widespread distrust in democratic institutions, principles, and norms within targeted societies. In Western Europe and the United States, Russian propaganda attempts to show that true democracies do not exist, that there is no meaningful difference between democratic and authoritarian regimes, and that Western actors promote democracy only to advance their geopolitical interests.

Nothing could more effectively reinforce these narratives in Armenia than Prime Minister Pashinyan’s recent actions and behavior. There is no doubt that the criminal case against Karapetyan and the campaign against his companies are being carried out under direct orders from the prime minister. Through his Facebook posts, he not only fails to conceal this fact but openly confirms it.

In other words, we are witnessing the instrumentalization of the justice system and the state apparatus for narrow, factional objectives. The ruling party, through tactics that closely resemble the rules of the game in Putin’s Russia, may succeed in temporarily mobilizing its core electorate. However, in the long run, such actions will deepen public mistrust and skepticism toward democratic norms and procedures—greatly weakening the country’s resilience to external influence and manipulation.

The authorities’ contemptuous attitude toward democratic procedures, the selective application of justice for political goals, and the silent complicity of various actors in these processes also pose a threat to internal dynamics. Pashinyan’s total control over law enforcement bodies and other state agencies—and their arbitrary use—could easily be turned against other critics of the government, who might then be branded as foreign agents to justify persecution.

Foreign influence—particularly Russian hybrid operations—is indeed a serious challenge for all countries bordering Russia. In Armenia’s case, one can confidently say that the intensity of such influence will increase in this pre-election year.

However, the fight against foreign interference cannot be conducted through unconstitutional and anti-democratic means, as this will only aid the realization of external objectives. Exaggerating the threat of foreign influence and using it to securitize all domestic issues will in turn undermine the country’s capacity to address genuine risks.

Democracy Watch is a joint initiative by CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security, a Yerevan-based think tank.