By Dr Shazia Anwer Cheema
The crackdown on the Armenian Apostolic Church is not an isolated incident. Precedents have already been set in Donbass, Luhansk, Donetsk, and Zaporozhia, where the Orthodox and canonical churches have been cancelled or banned. One can trace a wave of similar occurrences across the Euro-Asian sphere from Moldova to Georgia, and now in Armenia.
Last month, Armenian security forces detained Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan and Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan. The arrest of Archbishop Ajapahyan took a dramatic turn when security personnel violated the sanctity of the Etchmiadzin Cathedral, breaching all protocols by arresting several clergymen and followers. They were accused of plotting “terrorist attacks and a coup d’état,” allegedly recruiting ex-military personnel and organising “strike groups” to block roads and disrupt critical services. Authorities claimed that more than 1,000 individuals were involved in these operations.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has publicly declared the Etchmiadzin complex to be under the control of what he calls a “criminal oligarchic clergy,” vowing to “liberate” it personally. He has also accused the Church’s leader, Catholicos Karekin II, of coup plotting and moral misconduct, including breaking his vow of celibacy. Many analysts warn that this confrontation, although seemingly personal, has broader institutional ramifications, potentially destabilizing Armenia’s national identity.
I believe that the attacks on the Church are a politically motivated part of a larger agenda to silence one of Armenia’s most influential and independent voices. That suggests that alongside political suppression, Pashinyan’s administration is pushing a cultural agenda focused on Western woke ideology.
Moreover, the crackdown extends beyond religious figures. Opposition MPs from the Armenia Alliance and ARF parties have been stripped of parliamentary immunity, their homes and offices raided, and in some cases, they have been arrested primarily for their association with the Church, though charges range from corruption to coup plotting.
While Prime Minister Pashinyan insists that these actions are part of institutional reform and accountability, a skeptical mind, when connecting the dots across the region, cannot ignore a recurring pattern: historically and culturally embedded institutions such as the Orthodox Church are deliberately under attack. This is not merely political restructuring; it is a cultural transformation enforced by state machinery, backed by foreign support.
In my opinion, Armenia’s pivot toward the West has accelerated since the liberation of Karabakh by Azerbaijan and the subsequent peace negotiations. Prime Minister Pashinyan has cultivated stronger ties with the EU and the U.S., distancing Armenia from its traditional alignment with Russia. I believe this shift is driven, in part, by a sense of vengeance, as Pashinyan claimed to the Armenian public that Russia withheld its support during the war. However, in reality, it was Pashinyan’s incoherent strategic posture that created enough ambiguity to allow Western powers to entangle him in a web of temptations. He effectively refused any diplomatic solution involving Russian mediation, thereby fueling internal tensions. In this pivotal shift, traditional institutions like the Church have acted as a counterweight to Western influence, voicing nationalist and religious critiques. They reject the Western notion of vassalage-type alignment and advocate for neutrality, especially maintaining their sovereignty as a buffer zone between Russia and NATO. Unsurprisingly, this resistance does not align with the agendas of Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas.
The eastward expansion of NATO and the EU’s centralisation agenda is a major reason for the purge of religious institutions that have maintained centuries-long societal integration. Armenia’s current political landscape reflects a collision of tradition and modernity: a deeply rooted Orthodox Church, once considered untouchable, is being challenged by an assertive yet puppet government advocating secular, Western values. What some interpret as a movement toward transparency and modernisation, others see as an authoritarian attempt to dismantle religious influence and reshape national identity.
The situation in Armenia is not unique. The Georgian Dream Party is facing similar Western pressure. To preserve religious identity, it has proposed elevating Orthodoxy to the status of an official state religion. The Georgian Orthodox Church (GOC) has been a vocal critic of Georgia’s westward ambitions and its disconnection from historic religious, ethnic, and cultural ties with Russia.
In Moldova, the Orthodox majority is divided: around 80–90% follow the Moldovan Orthodox Church under Moscow’s jurisdiction, while 10–20% align with the Metropolis of Bessarabia, which is part of the Romanian Orthodox Church. Since the war in Ukraine and Moldova’s growing EU ambitions, over 60 parishes have been motivated to shift allegiance toward Bucharest, reflecting a broader cultural war against religious and cultural sovereignty. The Western-backed current Moldovan regime has incentivized the clergy to align with the pro-EU agenda. Yerevan’s actions risk provoking a similar religious massacre, and I fear that Chisinau may follow Ukraine’s path of civil unrest and mass protests by religious institutions. Moldova’s ruling pro-EU coalition is already facing mounting resistance from nationalist and religious parties ahead of September’s elections.
The unfolding confrontation between Church and state in Armenia reveals far more than a domestic dispute it encapsulates broader geopolitical tensions over cultural sovereignty, identity, and post-Soviet alignment. So-called Western liberal norms, when used as instruments of cultural hegemony, interfere with the civilizational fabric of sovereign countries, inevitably triggering regional tensions. The pretext for this cultural and religious intervention is to sever ties with Russia. Armenia, willingly playing into this design despite being geographically locked between Iran, Russia, and Azerbaijan, is transforming itself into a battleground for a civilizational clash.
The Armenian government fails to realize that by purging the most influential and respected institution in the country, it risks accelerating its own downfall. The public mood is not yet prepared to abandon traditional values, no matter how seductive Western liberal ideals may appear. These societies are not ready to trade their heritage and cultural identity for EU approval or woke culture.
The only logical outcome is the eruption of societal fault lines, present in every society, leading to massive political and social polarization. This brings me to my central point: it is not that Western think tanks, NGOs, or economic institutions are unaware of this risk. On the contrary, they understand it well. But they appear to seek precisely such outcomes: unrest and chaos, which are easier to exploit in pursuit of Western geopolitical interests.
Armenia seems to be walking that path, creating friction not only within its borders but also among its neighbors: Iran, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia. Through them, the entire Caucasus and Central Asia risk becoming the new theatre of perpetual conflict. I fear we are witnessing the making of a new Middle East, triggered by Armenia’s hopeless and vengeful policies following its defeat by Azerbaijan. The brutal and extrajudicial crackdown on the Church is a modus operandi to breed internal chaos, which then paves the way for further Western intervention in the region. All of this in pursuit of destabilising Russia, but at what cost? The collateral damage will be the entire neighborhood.
Note: The writer is an author and Doctor of Philosophy in Semiotics and Philosophy of Communication from Charles University, Prague. She can be reached at shaziaanwer@yahoo.com
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article/Opinion/Comment are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk (DND). Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk.
