Armenia: Archbishop Arrested in Alleged Coup Plot

Armenian authorities claim to have foiled an elaborate coup d’état allegedly orchestrated by a coalition of oligarchs, politicians, journalists, and members of the Armenian Apostolic Church (AAC). The plot, officials stated, was aimed at the violent overthrow of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government this September, culminating in a series of high-profile arrests across the country.

At the center of the conspiracy is Archbishop Bagrat, a prominent and vocal critic of Pashinyan, whom he has publicly denounced. Security services have released audio recordings purportedly of the archbishop detailing a plan to seize power. According to the investigation, the plan involved forming up to 200 combat groups of 25 people each, totaling around 5,000 militants, with the objective of storming the parliament building in Yerevan. Upon his detention, the archbishop remained defiant, stating, “No action, no detention can turn us from our path… We are coming for you.”

A criminal case has been opened against Archbishop Bagrat and members of his “Sacred Struggle” movement on charges of preparing terrorist acts and a violent seizure of power. The sweep also led to the detention of other significant figures, including an opposition party leader, a former regional governor and his wife, a television channel director, and a businessman, indicating the alleged conspiracy’s broad scope. The Investigative Committee reported that the group had acquired thousands of explosive devices and firearms, as well as sharp metal objects designed to puncture tires and paralyze city traffic.

The arrests followed the curious publication of a detailed coup d’état plan by a pro-government television channel, which claimed to have received it from opposition sources. This document was widely mocked by the public as cartoonish and simplistic, outlining a strategy to reconcile former presidents, use oligarchs to fund street protests, and install the church as a propaganda mouthpiece. Its highly specific timeline for victory was met with particular derision.

Despite the public’s skepticism, the ruling “Civil Contract” party and the Prosecutor General’s Office have treated the threat with utmost seriousness. Supporters of Pashinyan now frame his recent harsh criticism of the church as a preemptive move, suggesting he sensed a looming betrayal. Providing an expert view, political analyst Grant Mikaelyan suggests that while the audio recordings appear authentic, they could be taken out of context, and the published plan seems fabricated. He notes that it is common for leaders who came to power through a revolution, like Pashinyan, to be hyper-vigilant about being overthrown themselves, hinting that the government’s response may be an overreaction.