The victory of Pashinyan's party in the parliamentary elections has made the Kremlin look like the loser.

The Kremlin-loyal Armenian opposition failed to consolidate in the National Assembly elections due to Russian political strategists' poor understanding of Armenian public sentiment and the internal elite dynamics, according to Russian political scientists interviewed by the "Caucasian Knot."

According to "Caucasian Knot," the Civil Contract party, led by current Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, won the parliamentary elections, garnering 49.81% of the vote. The "Armenia" bloc will challenge the results of the June 7 parliamentary elections, announced the bloc's leader, the country's second president, Robert Kocharyan. Former Ombudsman Arman Tatoyan's Wings of Unity party has initiated a vote recount.

Restrictions on exports to Russia have strengthened the position of the Armenian electorate

Russian authorities have always been weak in projecting their influence onto their neighbors, according to political scientist Sergey Boyko.

"This weakness manifests itself when the ruling regime in a given country doesn't 'play the game.' A poor understanding of the mood of Armenian society and the internal elite balance ultimately led to the pro-Russian opposition failing to consolidate, and as a result, the Kremlin clearly looks like the losing side in the election results," Boyko told a correspondent. "Caucasian Knot."

Trade bans and threats from the Russian authorities played to Pashinyan's advantage, as he effectively acted as a symbol of Armenia's sovereignty, Boyko concluded.

Despite Russian pressure, the electorate in Armenia has changed very significantly, noted Alexey Gunya, a senior researcher at the Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

"The people who live in this country are naturally subject to various ideological influences. At the same time, many relocated immigrants have come to Armenia who do not have the best characterization of Russia, which has also affected the internal mood of Armenian voters. They have come to the conclusion that the situation in Russia is not the best for them or a model, and why it "We need to get our bearings," the analyst told a "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

A quarter of the Karapetyan Bloc's votes is a good start, Gunya continued. "Although he himself isn't, let's say, such an attractive leader compared to Pashinyan. But Karapetyan will probably learn from the mistakes he made and, as a result, will move forward, building on his experience," the analyst noted.

The Russian authorities decided not to question the results of the Armenian parliamentary elections, so as not to escalate tensions in relations between the two countries, he believes. "Although, of course, I think there were falsifications. And I think there were many, quite a lot, but nevertheless, the general public sentiment in the country is not so critical of Russia as to warrant taking any steps to not recognize the elections," Gunya said.

He also pointed to the shortcomings of Russian political strategists. "We have a very, very lax attitude toward analysis. But in reality, there has been no research in Armenia at the municipal, city, or other levels. No regular surveys have been conducted to track trends. In Russia, political strategists have essentially given up on science, believing it's unnecessary," Gunya concluded.

Pashinyan has maintained communication channels with Putin

On the eve of the elections in Armenia, there was a competition, including for Moscow's attention, noted Alexander Karavayev, a research fellow at the Caspian Institute for Strategic Studies (KISS).

"But the Kremlin wasn't making a specific bet. If a tough decision had been made to 'take down' Pashinyan, Putin wouldn't have received him in Moscow and wouldn't have called him a week before the elections to congratulate him on his birthday," Karavayev told a correspondent. "Caucasian Knot."

The analyst believes that Moscow already understood that Pashinyan was here to stay. "Therefore, they didn't break with him, but at the same time, they didn't provide him with a 'direct path.' They also didn't cut off the assets of pro-Russian parties and their financial sources, preserving the possibility of influence in the future," Karavaev noted.

In his opinion, thanks to various instruments of influence, Moscow managed to play a game of "distributed politics."

"Russian media structures and media outlets supported the opposition and the Armenian diaspora in the Russian Federation, thereby creating a certain advantage for them in the election campaign. Thus, the chances of victory in a clash with Yerevan's administrative resources were somewhat diminished – the opposition retained hope," Karavaev noted.

In turn, Pashinyan received assurances at the highest level that he remains a participant in the dialogue and maintains channels of communication with Putin, the analyst continued.

"And this is a very significant contribution to Pashinyan's victory, especially for the consciousness of rural communities in Armenia – the main part of the electorate. In addition Moreover, in the future, there remains the possibility of "returning" him to the traditional pattern of interaction between Yerevan and Moscow, which has been honed over decades: support for affiliated businesses, personal interest, and so on," Karavaev explained.

The topic of the EAEU is a factor in disciplinary action against the Pashinyan group's European integration rhetoric, he believes. "So they were reined in, and they, in turn, played up the whole EU engagement thing," Karavaev said.

* Meta (owner of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp) is banned in Russia.