Amsterdam: Armenian elections demonstrated paradox of how claims of  "foreign interference" can be used as political weapon

ArmInfo.The latest parliamentary elections in Armenia, held on June 7, best demonstrated the paradox of how claims of "foreign interference" can be used as a political weapon.  

This was written by Robert Amsterdam, founder and managing  partner of Amsterdam & Partners LLP and attorney for the leader of  the "Strong Armenia" bloc, Samvel Karapetyan, in his new article "An  Enemy Factory: The False Claims of "Russian Interference" as a Tool  of Political Persecution" for the Washington Examiner.

In it, the attorney noted that democracy collapses not only from  threats emanating from external enemies, but also when fear of these  enemies becomes a pretext for suppressing domestic opponents. "When a  government aims to destroy its opponent without paying the democratic  price of defeating them at the ballot box or in open debate, it  doesn't fight them. It simply redefines them. Then, an individual or  group ceases to be a legitimate competitor and becomes a threat or  agent to be expelled. This is precisely what my clients have  encountered in Russia, Venezuela, Thailand, Uganda, and other  countries," the lawyer writes.

As Amsterdam explained, in this case, the specific accusation isn't  as important as its function-to remove the opponent from the  political arena and portray them as a traitor. He noted that today,  this accusation is increasingly being couched in the form of alleged  "Russian interference." "It's important to be crystal clear here, as  clarity is the first thing that's sacrificed in such discussions.  Let's be clear: Russian interference does exist. Moscow has conducted  disinformation campaigns around the world, exerted pressure, and  pursued strategies lacking transparency of funding. Denying this  would be irresponsible, just as it would be irresponsible to ignore  similar interventions conducted by Western powers. However, in  reality, there's a vast gap between accepting this reality and  viewing any domestic dissent as a manifestation of it. In this gap, a  new type of political criminal is emerging today-the 'pro-Russian'  oppositionist, just as there were 'Soviet' opponents during the  McCarthy era," the international lawyer noted.

Thus, according to Amsterdam, under this mechanism, the existence of  a so-called hybrid threat is first declared, then it is assumed that  the dissidents themselves pose this threat simply because they  challenge the dominant political or geopolitical consensus.  Ultimately, as the lawyer noted, the burden of proof falls on the  opposing side. "Now, it is not the accusing party that must prove the  existence of this connection, but the accused themselves who must  refute it and demonstrate that they are not a puppet of a foreign  state.  As a result, a presumption of guilt is created that is  virtually impossible to evade. This dynamic has been further  exacerbated by the application of sanctions outside the legal  framework, when a person's reputation can be razed to the ground  without any real opportunity to defend themselves," the international  lawyer noted.

Amsterdam believes that the most dangerous aspect of all this is  systemic complicity. In this regard, he noted that the European Union  (EU) is becoming increasingly tolerant of the use of the label  "Russian interference" as a justification for limiting the law. Thus,  as the lawyer noted, under the pretext of defending democracy, one of  its fundamental characteristics-the right of the opposition to exist  and compete-is undermined. "When an opponent is devalued and equated  with the status of a foreign agent, virtually anything becomes  permissible. They are no longer a rival to be confronted, but an  existential threat. As a result, democracy is undermined under the  guise of its defense. Accusations of interference become an alibi for  those who want to govern without a real opposition. The recent  parliamentary elections in Armenia best illustrate this paradox. The  election campaign took place in an atmosphere of constant accusations  of foreign interference, with rival political forces claiming that  external forces were attempting to predetermine the election results.  But one thing has become clear: the extent to which claims of  interference have become a political weapon in themselves," the  lawyer emphasized.

In this regard, Amsterdam noted, the political lines adopted by  Yerevan and Kyiv are far more similar than many would like to admit.  He pointed out that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's attacks on the  legitimate political opposition mirror the events unfolding in  Ukraine under President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In conclusion, the  lawyer stated that democracy is measured not by how it treats its  allies, but by the legal guarantees and protections it provides to  its most undesirable adversaries. "When these guarantees are  suspended in the name of combating 'interference,' the damage caused  becomes irreversible," Amsterdam concluded.

As a reminder, prior to the parliamentary elections in Armenia, on  December 15, 2025, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and  Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, Kaja  Kallas, told reporters that Armenia had asked the European Union for  financial assistance to "prevent external interference ahead of the  next parliamentary elections" scheduled for June 2026. Kallas later  also stated that Russia had allegedly intensified its disinformation  campaign in the lead-up to the elections, and that the EU would  provide Armenia with ?15 million to counter external threats. On  April 26, 2026, the EU also approved the deployment of a mission to  assist Armenia in combating hybrid attacks for an initial two- year  period.