Solovyov’s proposal to wage war on Armenia
Armenian politicians and political analysts have reacted sharply to another provocative statement by Russian TV host Vladimir Solovyov, stressing the absurdity and inadmissibility of threats to Armenia’s sovereignty.
The Kremlin-linked propagandist, two of whose programmes have already been blocked from Armenia’s public multiplex for anti-Armenian content, this time turned to Russian-Armenian relations. He said that losing Armenia would be as much a problem for Russia as losing its sphere of influence in Ukraine. Moreover, Solovyov effectively threatened Armenia with “starting a special military operation” on its territory.
“We must very clearly formulate our goals and objectives. We must explain: the games are over. To hell with international law and the international order. If, for our national security, it was necessary to start a special military operation on the territory of Ukraine, why, based on the same considerations, can we not start a special military operation in other points of our zone of influence?” he said.
Alongside criticism of Solovyov’s remarks, Armenian experts are urging the foreign ministry to hand a note of protest to the Russian ambassador. Official Yerevan has so far remained silent.
Solovyov: ‘Losing Armenia would be a huge problem’
Russian TV host Vladimir Solovyov first addressed developments in Venezuela before turning to Armenia and Ukraine:
“We must not lose our positions, but what matters most to us is our near abroad. What is happening in Armenia is far more painful for us than what is happening in Venezuela. Losing Armenia — that would be a huge problem. What is happening in our Asia, in Middle Asia, Central Asia as it is called — that could also become a huge problem for us. […]
Perhaps we need to formulate our national doctrine and clearly state what our sphere of influence is. Then everything will be clear.
We need to stop casting pearls before swine and stop caring about what Europe thinks. We need to stop feeling sorry for Ukrainians. The brutality shown in the first week would have led to the conflict no longer existing. And the losses would have been far smaller — on both sides.”
Commentary
The leader of the For the Republic party, Arman Babajanyan, believes that Solovyov did not merely voice a personal opinion but articulated Russia’s foreign policy doctrine.
He stressed that Solovyov defines Russia’s “zones of influence” as objects of its “national interests”. Moreover, the Russian journalist treats the choices of sovereign states and international law as minor details that hinder their attainment.
“When a Russian state television channel openly talks about conducting a ‘special military operation’ not only in Ukraine but also in other Russian ‘zones of influence’, adding ‘to hell with international law’, this is a direct signal. It is a justification of the right to use force and coercion. The logic is this: the statehood of other peoples is viewed as a tool for exerting influence over them,” he said.
Babajanyan recalled that Armenia blocked broadcasts of Solovyov’s programmes back in 2024 over what it described as “hostile propaganda”. However, he believes this has not solved the problem:
“The same person continues to speak about the war in Ukraine and relations with the EU and the US, taking a position diametrically opposed to Armenia’s interests. And this content is not being ‘jammed’ on Armenian territory.”
According to Babajanyan, the spread of such “nonsense” even outside Armenia is a matter of national security, as it implies:
- “aggression against the state treated as normal,
- the denial of Armenia’s subjectivity,
- and attempts to justify further pressure on the country.”
Babajanyan expects an “institutional” response from state bodies. He proposes that the Minister of High-Tech Industry use technical measures to limit the rebroadcasting and accessibility of Russian state propaganda in Armenia.
“And the Foreign Ministry should summon the Russian ambassador to Armenia and deliver an official diplomatic protest — a note verbale — demanding clear explanations,” the politician argues.
In his view, the Foreign Ministry should state that propaganda advocating “forceful intervention” is unacceptable. Moreover, authorities should treat it as encouraging hostile actions, even when presented “as a private opinion”. He insists that Armenia must define its “red lines”:
“If we do not protect our public broadcasting and information space from state propaganda that openly rejects international law and legitimises an ‘operation’ on the territory of another sovereign state, then we ourselves weaken the protective layers of Armenia’s sovereignty.”
The leader of the Republic party, Aram Sargsyan, says that “state propagandist” Vladimir Solovyov does not treat Armenia as a state. Instead, he portrays it as a zone of Russian influence.
“It follows that the fifth column loyal to them consists not of Armenia’s former presidents, clergy or oligarchs, but of elements of Russian influence.”
Meanwhile, Sargsyan notes, Armenian citizens expressed their view on Russia’s “zone of influence” during the 2018 and 2021 elections. He is referring to voters backing the current authorities, whom Russia has been unable to dictate an agenda to:
“Solovyov is nervous because he knows that the people will stick to their position at the 2026 parliamentary elections as well. The fifth column — that is, former presidents, clergy and oligarch-saviours — would do well to orient themselves regarding proposals to turn Armenia into a Russian zone of influence and subjugate it by military force, so that it does not turn out that they too support Solovyov’s position and believe their return is possible only in this way.”
Expert opinion
Political analyst Hovsep Khurshudyan stressed:
“Figures like Solovyov and Simonyan [referring to Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of RT] would not be so brazen or so loose-tongued about Armenia if there were not a large detachment of Kremlin slaves here — a fifth column made up of agents and traitors.
That is why it is important to neutralise all of them as soon as possible — from KGB officers disguised as priests to ‘philanthropic’ pickpockets in the form of Russian and Russia-aligned oligarchs, with whom this fifth column dreams of a Russian ‘bourgeois-democratic revolution’.”
Political scientist Lilit Dallakyan noted:
“I’m surprised that Armenian society is irritated by Solovyov’s words. Given his ‘positive reputation’ worldwide, he is advertising Armenia.
I think that since those who used to pay him for his affection towards Armenia are now having problems, he has found another source of income.
Moreover, when you are humiliated every day in Iran, Venezuela and Syria while talking about traditional values; when you have serious problems in your family; when your tankers are seized by your ‘beloved’ US president and you cannot even squeak; when your president makes excuses to Aliyev and hands over an agent of influence; and when Kupiansk, captured five times, still cannot be captured — you have to vent your anger somewhere.
In short, he is a gift for those who criticise Russian policy. And he constantly puts his Armenian colleagues in an awkward position.”
