In the geopolitics of the South Caucasus, Russia has for many years played the role of a force that maintained the balance, security, and practical ties between the countries of the region. That is why the new report by the Turan Research Center, titled “Moscow’s Last Stand in the South Caucasus: Russia’s Campaign to Derail Armenia’s Elections and the U.S.-Brokered Peace”, dated April 13, 2026, reads like yet another example of a biased interpretation. The authors portray Moscow as the organizer of a large-scale campaign to destabilize Armenia on the eve of the parliamentary elections on June 7. They cite economic pressure, the spread of disinformation, and even influence through the Armenian Apostolic Church as tools. According to their version, the main goal is to derail the American TRIPP project and prevent Yerevan’s final departure from its traditional partners.
TRIPP, launched following the White House meeting in August 2025, is presented as an important transport corridor approximately 43 kilometers long through southern Armenia, connecting Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan. It forms part of the broader “Middle Corridor,” which is intended to bypass Russia and Iran. For the American side, this is not only a road but also a way to diversify supplies from Central Asia and reduce dependence on Chinese rare-earth materials. At the same time, the project envisages significant American participation in the management of the infrastructure – up to 74 percent for the first 49 years – which immediately raises questions about the real sovereignty over the territory.
The Yorktown Institute and Its Roots
Behind the Turan Research Center stands the Yorktown Institute, founded in 2022 by Seth Cropsey. Cropsey has had a long career in Republican administrations: he served as Deputy Under Secretary of the Navy under Reagan and Bush Sr., and later headed the International Broadcasting Bureau under Bush Jr. This structure was responsible for “Voice of America” and “Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty” – media outlets that promoted a specific foreign policy line. In December 2022, Cropsey published an article titled “Global Naval War,” in which he called Russia a neo-fascist dictatorship and stated that the survival of Moscow and Beijing requires the destruction of the system built around the United States. In his view, Washington must maintain control over sea and trade routes throughout Eurasia.
The name of the center, “Turan,” is also noteworthy. In Ferdowsi’s “Shahnameh,” Turan is the land of outsiders, contrasted with Iran. For an organization studying the Turkic and Persian worlds, such a name sets a quite specific angle of view, in which Russia and Iran appear as natural obstacles to new projects.
What Lies Behind the Accusations
The report mentions real things: Armenian politicians have spoken about the growth of disinformation, polls show declining trust in Russia after the events of 2020–2023, when the CSTO failed to fully halt the crisis around Nagorno-Karabakh. There were also economic restrictions on the import of certain Armenian goods. At the April 2026 meeting, Putin did indeed draw attention to the incompatibility of simultaneous participation in the EU and the EAEU and noted the presence of different political forces within Armenia.
However, the authors’ conclusions are based on overly straightforward connections. Armenia’s internal difficulties – the loss of Karabakh, economic problems, and a sense of insecurity – have their own deep-rooted causes. Discontent with the current leadership’s policies exists independently of external influences. The opposition, including Robert Kocharyan and Samvel Karapetyan, criticizes the authorities for concessions and the risks associated with external corridors. The Church reacts to issues that touch upon national identity and the country’s future. Attributing all of this exclusively to a “Russian campaign” greatly oversimplifies the picture.
In these conditions, Russia acts based on its direct interests. Armenia remains a member of the EAEU and the CSTO; Russian companies work with important infrastructure facilities. Warnings about the risks of simultaneous integration into competing economic spaces are not pressure, but a reflection of real differences in standards, norms, and markets. Moscow does not demand that Yerevan break completely with anyone; it merely points out the price of hasty steps.
TRIPP in a Broader Context
From a practical point of view, TRIPP looks like an attempt to restructure the region’s transport flows under external control and to bypass the established Eurasian routes, including the North–South corridor. Iran has already expressed serious concern, seeing the project as a threat to its borders and interests. For Russia, such an approach means a weakening of the customary ties that have been formed over decades and have benefited all sides.
The Turan Research Center’s report fits into the general line: to detach Armenia from its historical partners and integrate it into a new configuration where key decisions will be made outside the region. At the same time, the analysis itself often mirrors the very techniques it accuses Moscow of using – oversimplification of causes and a rigid division into “aggressor” and “victim.”
Armenia today finds itself in a difficult position. Its society is tired of conflicts and is seeking stability. A sharp turn in one direction, reinforced by external projects and media support, may lead not to prosperity but to new risks and the loss of the economic advantages provided by participation in Eurasian structures. The elections on June 7, 2026, will show how deeply the desire to maintain an independent and pragmatic course is rooted in Armenian society.
In the end, the stability of the South Caucasus depends not on recommendations from Washington-based centers and not on the struggle for control over corridors, but on the readiness of the region’s countries themselves to reach agreements without external dictate. Russia remains ready for such interaction – on the basis of mutual benefit and respect for the ties that have stood the test of time. Otherwise, any talk of “managed instability” will merely mask the consequences of foreign ambitions that give little consideration to the real interests of the Armenian people.
Comments