In June 2025, Armenian authorities arrested Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan and several associates over an alleged coup plot linked to the Church-affiliated Holy Struggle movement. The incident marks a deepening confrontation between Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government and the Armenian Apostolic Church, rooted in ideological, institutional, and geopolitical divergence. As Armenia reorients away from Russian influence and toward Western alliances, internal tensions over national identity, religious authority, and political sovereignty continue to intensify. The situation reflects a broader redefinition of power in post-conflict Armenia.
Key Takes:
- What began as a criminal investigation into an alleged coup attempt has evolved into a broader lens on Armenia’s shifting power structure — where legal action, identity politics, and geopolitical realignment now intersect.
- On June 25, Archbishop Galstanyan and 13 others were arrested for allegedly planning a violent coup with over 1,000 recruits. The alleged objectives included attacks on government institutions and infrastructure.
- Billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, linked to the Church, was also arrested the week prior for inciting regime change.
- The Armenian Apostolic Church, historically central to national identity, has clashed repeatedly with Pashinyan’s administration.
- Tensions escalated with personal insults, including allegations of clerical misconduct and a controversial public exchange over circumcision.
- The government accuses the Church of acting as a political actor with oligarchic backing.
- The conflict reflects a deeper struggle over who defines “Armenianness”: the secular state or the traditional Church.
- Pashinyan’s administration promotes a Western-oriented, civic national identity, sidelining religious influence. The Church’s positions align with Russian conservative narratives, including opposition to the Istanbul Convention and CSTO withdrawal.
-
Armenia has grown disillusioned with Russia’s limited support during conflicts with Azerbaijan, shifting toward the West.
-
Azerbaijan has moved closer to Russia, adding complexity to the regional balance.
Current Events: Alleged Coup Attempt and Arrests
On June 25, Armenian law enforcement arrested Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, a senior figure in the Armenian Apostolic Church and prominent government critic, alongside thirteen others accused of participating in an alleged plot to overthrow the government. The National Security Service accused the group named the Holy Struggle of plotting to overthrow the government through violent means, including recruiting over 1,000 individuals—mainly former military and police personnel—to form 200 to 250 armed squads tasked with blocking, attacking, or sizing control of strategic infrastructure, and more generally incite unrest. The stated objectives included bombing the National Assembly, setting fire to government buildings, sabotaging energy infrastructure, and cutting internet and power supplies to disrupt state operations.
The Armenian Investigative Committee charged Galstanyan and his alleged helpers with preparing acts of terrorism and attempting to destabilize the state. Audio recordings and photographs of weapons, uniforms, and encrypted communication devices, allegedly linked to the group, were published by investigators. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated on Telegram that security forces had thwarted a “large and sinister plan” by what he described as a “criminal-oligarchic clergy.”
This follows the arrest one week earlier of Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, who voiced support for the Church and criticized the government in a public video. Karapetyan was charged with calling for the illegal seizure of power.
Past Accusations of Coup Plots
The June 2025 arrests are not the first time Armenian authorities have claimed to thwart an attempt to destabilize the government. Tensions between the executive and opposition-aligned figures have been frequent, particularly since the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war.
The state’s response to protest movements has often included accusations of unconstitutional intentions., and while Armenian authorities often contend they discovered concrete evidence—such as audio recordings, weapons, recruitment lists, and plans outlining violent disruption—independent verification remains limited. The state maintains it intercepted operations during their preparation stage, with searches across 90 locations uncovering incriminating materials. However, defense lawyers and several opposition figures assert the charges are politically motivated and that items like weapons were never found at the individuals’ homes. Hence, the true extent of any actual coup effort remains contested.
In parallel with these legal accusations, public rhetoric between the government and the Church has intensified. In June 2025, Prime Minister Pashinyan responded to a priest’s personal insult—alleging he was circumcised and not truly Christian—by controversially offering to physically disprove the claim, directly challenging Catholicos Karekin II by name. This incident followed weeks of escalating tensions, during which Pashinyan accused senior clerics of breaking their vows, allegedly fathering children, and misusing Church property.
The Church’s Enduring Role and the Catholicos
The Armenian Apostolic Church, established in the early 4th century, remains one of the most enduring institutions in the country. The Catholicos of All Armenians, currently Karekin II, holds the highest spiritual authority. The Church retains considerable public respect and cultural influence, with a majority of Armenians identifying their national identity closely with Christian heritage.
The Armenian Apostolic Church maintains close historical links with the Russian Orthodox Church, with senior clerics echoing pro-Russian narratives and resisting a potential push toward the West. Its opposition to ratifying the Istanbul Convention (a European treaty aimed at preventing violence against women) and criticism of Armenia’s withdrawal from the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO, a Russia-led military alliance, similar in structure to NATO) reflect alignment with conservative values, similar to Russian positions.
As mentioned above, the recent years have seen mounting friction between the Church and Prime Minister Pashinyan. In early June 2025, Pashinyan publicly called for Catholicos Karekin II to step down, citing allegations of personal misconduct. The Church did not respond directly to the claim but warned against threats to Armenia’s “spiritual unity.” In turn, the government intensified its criticism of Church leadership and their wealthy backers.
Competition Over National Identity
Beyond immediate politics, the confrontation reflects competing visions of Armenian identity. The government is increasingly framing sovereignty and national continuity around secular, democratic state institutions. In contrast, the Church positions itself as a custodian of Armenian tradition, culture, and moral authority.
In practice, the Church criticism often acts as a “cultural counterweight” to Pashinyan’s pro-European agenda and is used by Moscow to influence domestic politics. While the Church disputes its actions are politically motivated, its alignment with Russian messaging has deepened tension with a government intent on redefining Armenian sovereignty.
This new opposition could be described as a shift from a former dual symbolic structure—state and church as co-definers of identity—toward a struggle for the monopolization of Armenia’s historical legacy and the political legitimacy it confers.
Geopolitical Realignment and the Russian Factor
As a cause or a symptom, Armenia’s shifting international orientation has further deepened the divide between Church and state. Traditionally aligned with Russia, Armenia has expressed dissatisfaction with Moscow’s limited support during the 2020 and 2023 military clashes with Azerbaijan. In recent years, the Pashinyan administration has sought closer ties with the European Union and the United States, including cooperation on defense and governance reforms, and while Russia remains a key player in the region, its influence is increasingly contested.
The Kremlin’s response to the alleged June 25 coup and the arrests that followed was limited, describing the situation as an internal Armenian matter and reiterating its interest in regional stability. However, it is worth noting that Armenian authorities have announced the nationalization of the Electric Networks of Armenia, a key utility previously owned by Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan, one of the individuals recently detained. The timing has drawn attention, as the move directly targets Russian-linked economic assets amid ongoing political tensions, and suggests that the state is not only responding to security concerns but also using the moment to reassert economic sovereignty and dismantle structures historically tied to Moscow.
Analysis and Future Outlook
The current situation illustrates not only a political dispute but a broader transformation in Armenian statehood and national identity. The arrests of high-profile figures like Archbishop Galstanyan and businessman Samvel Karapetyan point to a government strategy aimed at consolidating authority and neutralizing perceived centers of alternative legitimacy—both religious and economic.
Pashinyan’s administration is asserting a vision of Armenia centered on a secular, Western-aligned, and state-driven model of sovereignty. This approach challenges older frameworks where the Church played a co-governing or symbolic role in national identity, especially during periods of foreign rule. The deliberate legal and rhetorical campaign against clerical influence marks a structural shift toward institutionalizing state primacy.
At the same time, this transition occurs in a fragile geopolitical environment. As Armenia diversifies its alliances and reduces dependence on Russia, it risks internal backlash from factions aligned with traditionalist or pro-Moscow sentiments. In addition, Azerbaijan has maintained closer ties with Moscow, shifting the regional balance further. The state’s ability to navigate this transition without triggering deeper fragmentation—both domestically and in its regional posture—will be critical in the coming year.
Looking forward, three potential scenarios emerge:
- Pessimistic Scenario (Moderate Confidence): Legal proceedings against Galstanyan and Karapetyan intensify political polarization. Protests resume, and arrests of opposition figures continue. The confrontation further destabilizes public trust in both the government and the Church.
- Intermediate Scenario (High Confidence): The state maintains control while de-escalating public rhetoric. The accused are tried within a high-profile legal process. Tensions persist but are managed institutionally. The Church retains symbolic influence, but political space narrows for clerical activism.
- Optimistic Scenario (Low Confidence): National dialogue is initiated around constitutional roles of religion and state. Government and Church reach a tacit détente, focusing on shared social concerns while avoiding direct confrontation. The geopolitical realignment continues with broader public consensus.
Conclusion
Armenia is undergoing a multidimensional transformation—internally, in its Church–state balance, and externally, in its geopolitical alignment. The alleged coup and subsequent arrests signal not only political crisis but also a contested redefinition of Armenian sovereignty and identity. Whether the state can manage this shift without exacerbating internal division or external vulnerability remains an open and urgent question.