Labeling Independent Actors “Pro-Russian”: A New Instrument for Censoring Critics

30.01.2026

By Tigran Grigoryan

 

A couple of months ago, I was invited to a working lunch with a foreign delegation, together with several other colleagues representing Armenia’s civil society and think tank community. As the discussion turned to Armenia’s domestic dynamics, I pointed out the anti-constitutional and anti-democratic nature of some of the domestic processes initiated by Armenia’s ruling party–namely, the instrumentalization of law-enforcement and the judicial system in the ruling party’s confrontation with the Church leadership and other political opponents. These actions are often justified by the broader goal of countering hybrid threats and foreign interference.

 

One of the Armenian participants—someone who has successfully blurred the boundaries between civil society actors, political activists, and the expert community within himself—challenged my assessment of abuse of power and asked who had defined the mentioned cases as politically motivated or as instances of abuse of power. When I replied that this was the assessment of independent human rights organizations and activists, he claimed that only pro-Russian actors held such views.

 

This episode was indicative of a wider trend in Armenia’s public space. Amid growing political polarization and Russia’s diminished public standing in Armenia, labeling independent actors as pro-Russian has become a popular tactic used by various figures, some of whom occupy the civil society space. In this process, these actors have managed to convince certain segments of Armenian society that large, well-established, Western-funded media outlets and civil society organizations are serving a Russian agenda. When one tries to understand the reasoning behind such narratives, it becomes clear that the basis of this argument is precisely the upholding of journalistic and professional standards by these outlets and organizations. Being “pro-Russian,” in the view of the purveyors of these ideas, means providing space for alternative views and debate; in the case of media outlets, it means presenting both sides of the story when covering domestic politics, holding the governing accountable, and asking uncomfortable questions.

 

Most worryingly, this pattern of behavior is exhibited by the ruling party itself and by various members of the highest echelons of power, who actively participate in these smear campaigns–both publicly and behind closed doors–encouraging their loyalists to follow suit. This tactic implies the instrumentalization of the concept of sovereignty for domestic political purposes and the portrayal of nearly every critic or instance of criticism of the government–from political opponents to striking miners–as serving foreign agendas. As mentioned above, certain actors who occupy the civil society space willingly replicate this behavior.

 

Paradoxically, this line of reasoning and pattern of behavior are defining features of Putinist Russia. Decades before Armenian civil society actors and activists began rationalizing and justifying the use of anti-constitutional measures for the protection of the country’s sovereignty, one of the main ideologues of modern-day Russia, Vladislav Surkov, introduced the notion of “sovereign democracy.” Its premise was strikingly familiar: suppressing political opponents and democratic norms for the sake of “protecting Russia’s sovereignty.”

 

Another defining feature of Putinist Russia is the systematic disregard for the rule of law and even the most basic semblance of legality in the pursuit of domestic political objectives. In this context, one of the most dangerous ideas that my colleagues and I previously encountered in closed-door discussions has now begun to surface openly in public discourse. The logic is as follows: we are certain that a given actor serves foreign interests, but we lack evidence; Armenia does not possess the necessary legal instruments to address this, therefore it may be acceptable to resort to extra-legal measures to neutralize such threats.

 

Within this framework, there is no place for due process, the presumption of innocence, or institutional safeguards. Instead, the state is effectively granted carte blanche to violate the law on the basis of subjective, non-institutional judgments.

 

This approach is not only a key characteristic of authoritarian systems such as Putinist Russia, but also reflects a profound lack of understanding of the evolution of the modern state. Francis Fukuyama argues in Political Order and Political Decay that one of the pillars of building a professional and competent bureaucratic state–one of the core aspects of political development–has been the attempt by modernizing systems to neutralize personal and subjective factors in governance by replacing them with impersonal and institutional ones. From this perspective, such thinking lags at least a couple of centuries behind the overall logic of global political development.

 

Finally, the perception of media and independent organizations as actors that are expected to follow the government line is also a key characteristic of Russia’s contemporary political system. Russia’s slide back from a fragile and imperfect democracy toward authoritarianism began with the takeover and neutralization of major independent media outlets such as NTV. Against this backdrop, the labeling and delegitimization of independent outlets by high-ranking officials–and by their supporters within the civil society space–constitutes a deeply troubling signal.

 

Thus, the paradox of the situation is that if the thinking and approaches described above were to become widespread, those who claim to be fighting Russian influence and its alleged agents–while smearing independent actors for refusing to conform to a polarized and politicized mindset–would in practice push Armenia toward a status quo that closely resembles Russia’s current political system. Countering this logic is therefore essential to preventing such a trajectory.

 

Even today, however, the described behavior and smear campaigns have a very concrete impact on the health of Armenia’s democratic process. The purpose of this tactic is to push various actors into self-censorship and to limit their ability to speak out against abuses and violations of democratic norms. One of the greatest advantages of democratic systems over other political systems is their capacity to guarantee free deliberation and open debate. These trends strip Armenia of that advantage, imposing non-critical and compliant thinking across society.

 

Democracy Watch is a joint initiative of CivilNet and the Regional Center for Democracy and Security.

 

This material has been funded by UK International Development from the UK government; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies.