PSCRP-BESA Reports No 160 (October 23, 2025)
The arrest of Bishop Mkrtich Proshyan and several priests in mid-October 2025 has deepened tensions between the Armenian government and the Armenian Apostolic Church, an institution whose leadership maintains historic and political ties to Russia. Authorities describe the operation as part of a criminal investigation into alleged abuses of religious authority, including coercing parishioners to participate in anti-government protests and interference in electoral processes.
While the Church denies the accusations and has characterized the arrests as an attack on Christianity, analysts note that it has historically played a political role aligned with Russian interests and segments of the Armenian elite. Similar to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate, which has supported Russian objectives, the Armenian Apostolic Church has in recent years engaged in activities that align with Moscow’s broader strategic goals.
A Church Under Investigation — or Political Siege?
Bishop Proshyan, who leads the Aragatsotn Diocese and is the nephew of Catholicos Karekin II, occupies a senior position in one of Armenia’s key dioceses. His detention carries symbolic weight, signaling that the government is willing to confront the Church hierarchy directly.
The arrests are part of a broader pattern targeting senior clergy. In June 2025, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan — a prominent figure in anti-government protests — was detained and accused of plotting a coup and recruiting former soldiers and police officers to undermine the state. Earlier in October, Archbishop Mikael Ajapahyan was sentenced to two years in prison for publicly calling for the government’s overthrow.
These measures follow the 2024 protests triggered by Armenia’s decision to cede several border villages to Azerbaijan, a policy the Church vocally opposed. Religious institutions, including monasteries and parish networks, became focal points for anti-government mobilization. What the government describes as treason or subversion, the Church frames as fulfilling its spiritual duty.
Why the Church Won’t Stay Out of Politics
The Armenian Apostolic Church is not just a religious institution — it is one of the oldest national bodies, predating the modern Armenian state. Its leadership, including Catholicos Karekin II, was elevated with the support of the pre-2018 political elite. Karekin II’s election in 1999 was reportedly controversial; critics, including some within the Church, alleged that external pressures influenced the process and that factions with ties to the Soviet-era security apparatus played a role. This highlights a longstanding entanglement of the Church’s hierarchy with political power structures. That same elite is now largely in opposition to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, meaning the Church’s top hierarchy remains spiritually Armenian but politically aligned with the old, Moscow-influenced system of governance.
The Church’s political role can be traced even further back to the Soviet period. Under Stalin, religious institutions across the USSR were destroyed and then selectively resurrected, with heavy infiltration by KGB agents to control clerical leadership and influence local populations. In the case of Armenia, the Mitrokhin Archive, a collection of leaked KGB documents, indicates that the Armenian Church, along with other Soviet religious institutions, was at times used for political purposes by Soviet intelligence. The archive notes that while lower-ranking clergy were not always recruited as agents, senior hierarchs were almost always integrated into intelligence networks, reflecting the importance of the Church’s leadership for Soviet influence operations. Even after the collapse of the USSR, many of these institutional and personal connections persisted. For example, the late leader of the Armenian Church in Australia and New Zealand, who died in 2014, was revealed to have worked with Russian intelligence, though it remains unclear whether these ties continued after the Soviet era.
This historical legacy helps explain the Church’s contemporary stance toward Armenian domestic and foreign policy. It has consistently opposed Pashinyan’s moves toward peace with Azerbaijan, closer integration with the European Union, and a deliberate distancing from Russia. For many in the clergy, these policy shifts are not merely diplomatic decisions — they are perceived as betrayals of Armenia’s traditional alliances and national interests.
The Billionaire Behind the Backdrop
But the story is not only about religious ideology. Economic and political influence also plays a role, and this is where Samvel Karapetyan enters.
Karapetyan, a Russian-Armenian billionaire and owner of the Tashir Group, is one of the wealthiest Armenians globally. In July 2025, he publicly supported Church-led opposition to Pashinyan.
Karapetyan built his business empire in Russia and maintains close ties to its political and economic establishment. His company was awarded the state contract to construct the new headquarters of the Investigative Committee of Russia, one of the Kremlin’s most sensitive law enforcement bodies. In Russia, contracts of this type are typically granted only to companies with established trust at the highest levels of government. Indeed, Russian media have described Karapetyan as one of the “kings of state procurement,” a term used for oligarchs whose business success is closely tied to government networks.
His involvement in Armenian political and Church-related activities has drawn attention precisely because of these connections. In June 2025, Karapetyan was arrested in Armenia on charges of inciting unrest, an event that coincided closely with the arrests of senior clergy. Observers note that the timing of these detentions reflects the government’s effort to address overlapping political, religious, and economic networks, though officials maintain the cases are legal and not politically motivated.
Strategic Corridors and External Pressures
Karapetyan’s name also surfaced during the Second Karabakh War in 2020, when Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev accused him of facilitating the transfer of weapons and fighters from Russia to Armenia. These allegations were never publicly proven, but they drew attention to Karapetyan’s capacity to move resources and funds across borders.
The situation highlights Armenia’s position as a strategic corridor between Russia and Iran, as well as between sanctioned economies and regional trade networks. Both Moscow and Tehran have longstanding interests in maintaining influence in the country.
Observers note that the Armenian Apostolic Church, through its network of religious institutions, can mobilize public sentiment, while wealthy individuals like Karapetyan provide financial support. In this context, Armenia’s internal politics take on broader regional significance. While there is no direct evidence of coordinated foreign interference, the government’s recent actions against clerics and politically active figures underscore the complex interplay between domestic dissent and regional strategic considerations.
Armenia: Serbia 2.0 in the Making?
The playbook is not new. In the 1990s, the Serbian Orthodox Church helped mobilize nationalist sentiment over Kosovo, with the Kremlin amplifying these narratives. The result was conflict, international isolation, stalled European integration, and a lasting legacy of trauma. Churches can support peace — or amplify division. When they intersect with foreign power networks, their influence can have significant geopolitical consequences.
Armenia now faces a similar challenge: will it remain tethered to the legacy of past wars and nostalgia, or pursue a democratic path with closer ties to Europe? Choosing the former — nationalist ambitions in Karabakh, clerical activism, and financially backed opposition — risks replicating Serbia’s trajectory. Opting for reform, Western integration, and strengthened sovereignty would represent a decisive step away from Moscow’s influence.
With parliamentary elections scheduled for 2026, Armenia’s political orientation is entering a critical phase. Prime Minister Pashinyan’s government presents itself as a reformist, pro-European force, while Church-aligned opposition groups, supported by oligarchic networks with connections to Moscow, frame the administration as illegitimate. Observers interpret recent arrests of clerics and figures such as Samvel Karapetyan as efforts to curb the consolidation of this opposition before it can mount a formal electoral challenge.
The Armenian government’s actions against the Armenian Apostolic Church have not gone unnoticed by Moscow. The Russian Orthodox Church condemned Armenia’s actions against the Armenian Apostolic Church, labeling the arrest of philanthropist Samvel Karapetyan as political persecution. Simultaneously, Russian media figures such as Margarita Simonyan and Vladimir Solovyev have openly called for Pashinyan’s removal and for Russia to protect Karapetyan, highlighting the Kremlin’s vested interest in Armenia’s internal affairs.
The involvement of the Russian Orthodox Church as well as pro-Kremlin propagandists signals Moscow’s concern over the situation, reflecting the intertwined nature of religious institutions and state power in the region. The response from the Russian Orthodox Church may influence public perception in Armenia, particularly among those who view the Church as a stabilizing force and a symbol of national identity.
These actions are not about questioning the Church’s importance as an institution — that role remains widely acknowledged. They reflect a deeper question: who ultimately governs Armenia — its elected leaders, or the legacy of its past?
PSCRP team