As 2026 elections draw closer, Pashinyan warns of war to rally support

2026-03-26 - 14:41

YEREVAN, Armenia — Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has intensified political tensions ahead of upcoming elections, warning the country could face a “disastrous war” in September unless his ruling Civil Contract party secures a constitutional majority in parliament. During a walking campaign tour in Yerevan on Sunday, Pashinyan said the stakes of the election extend beyond domestic politics, framing the vote as a decisive factor in ensuring national stability. “If the Civil Contract party does not secure a constitutional majority... there will be war in September,” he said, describing the potential conflict as catastrophic. He said the warning is based on his experience and responsibility as a long-serving leader. The prime minister’s remarks sparked immediate political backlash and raised questions about whether they amount to political pressure on voters. Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan sought to clarify and defend the prime minister’s position, suggesting that the reference to September should be interpreted more broadly as a postelection timeframe rather than a fixed prediction. “Such a scenario is certainly possible,” he said, rejecting claims the statement constituted blackmail or coercion. Mirzoyan said certain opposition forces espouse ideologies that could heighten regional tensions, suggesting their policies might lead to immediate confrontation with neighboring countries. Public rhetoric intensified further as National Assembly Speaker Alen Simonyan weighed in, describing the ruling Civil Contract party as a “party of peace” in contrast to opposition forces he characterized as aligned with war-oriented policies. Speaking to the press in parliament, Simonyan said the political choice facing voters is between peace and the risk of conflict. “Has there ever been a time when the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan spoke only about peace? We must not allow ourselves to lose the opportunity for peace,” he stated, underscoring the government’s message of stability. Simonyan also addressed past criticism, acknowledging previous actions such as posing against the backdrop of Aghdam, which he said reflected a mindset he has since moved beyond. He said that under the current administration, Armenia is not engaged in processes that would, according to him, endanger the lives of its citizens. “Is it bad that today the Republic of Armenia is not in a process where our children would be sacrificed? I believe that is a good thing,” he said, a statement that contrasts with the more than 5,000 Armenian soldiers killed during the 2020 war. He said the political divide in the 2026 elections will center on a choice between peace and potential conflict, framing the opposition as proponents of instability. Simonyan also rejected accusations against Pashinyan, including claims he is aligned with external actors, calling such statements misguided and counterproductive. The debate has also focused on the ruling party’s push for a constitutional majority, which requires a two-thirds parliamentary threshold. Such a majority is necessary to initiate constitutional amendments or adopt a new constitution, adding significance to the election. Opposition leaders strongly condemned Pashinyan’s comments. Former president and Armenia Alliance prime ministerial candidate Robert Kocharyan sharply criticized Pashinyan, accusing him of misrepresenting the status of a potential peace agreement and relying on what Kocharyan described as political manipulation. Speaking on the third episode of podcast “Big Politics,” Kocharyan said Pashinyan was referencing a so-called “peace agreement” that, in his view, does not exist in a legally binding sense. He argued the document is “merely a paper” without legal force and that repeated public discussion has given it misleading significance. Kocharyan further claimed that the prime minister lacks the analytical capacity to assess foreign policy decisions and questioned past statements, including a past declaration that “Artsakh is Armenia and that’s it.” Kocharyan said his political camp is committed to what he described as “guaranteed peace,” asserting that a structured security framework could be implemented within a relatively short timeframe. He said that under such conditions, the risk of renewed conflict would be eliminated. He asserted that if he had returned to power in 2021, the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh would have unfolded differently, arguing that key agreements such as the Prague statement were decisive factors in the loss of the region. He attributed responsibility for the outcome to a single leadership decision to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. Kocharyan also commented on a recent incident in the Yerevan metro involving the prime minister, which he described as inappropriate conduct toward a woman in a public setting. He said the episode reflects a lack of what he described as fundamental cultural or social norms, arguing it is unacceptable for a national leader to speak in such a tone, particularly in the presence of a child. Calling the incident “shocking,” Kocharyan questioned whether such behavior is compatible with the expectations for a head of government, adding it raises broader concerns about the prime minister’s connection to Armenian cultural values. In an interview with the Weekly, Armenia Alliance lawmaker Garnik Danielyan raised questions about recent statements by Pashinyan, particularly warnings of a possible escalation in September. Danielyan questioned the basis for the prime minister’s assertions, asking how such a specific timeline could be known in advance. He said the remarks raise serious concerns and speculated about possible undisclosed understandings with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, while acknowledging that such claims remain unproven. He said his comments reflect a broader skepticism within opposition circles about the government’s public messaging on security risks. Danielyan contrasted the current situation with previous periods of leadership, arguing Armenia experienced relative stability during Kocharyan’s presidency. He asserted comparisons of wartime losses and casualties across different administrations should be examined more closely, urging the public to assess the human cost of conflict over time. According to Danielyan, both territorial losses and casualties in recent years represent serious failures of the current leadership.