The Foreign Intelligence Service Has Exposed “Hybrid Threats”
Armenia’s Foreign Intelligence Service has published a report which, in essence, repeats the authorities’ propaganda narratives about “hybrid war.” To begin with, the report quite correctly notes that there is still no universally accepted or internationally codified definition of this concept. Yes, some political scientists (for example, the American Frank Hoffman, a former Marine officer) use the term, but it remains largely a propaganda-driven, journalistic label—one that in Armenia is used exclusively to stigmatize Nikol Pashinyan’s opponents.
In my view, the term contains nothing new that actually describes today’s situation. For example, it is well known that in the 5th century BC, Persia and Greece were not only fighting on the battlefield: they were also conducting propaganda campaigns against each other, issuing threats, and maintaining spies and agents in the opposing camp. Technology—and in particular the mediums through which information is transmitted—has changed, but the essence has not. If the term is so important, then we can say that Russia is certainly waging a hybrid war against Ukraine, and Azerbaijan is waging one against us.
But the authorities—this report included—by “hybrid war” mean not Azerbaijan or Turkey at all, but Russia alone. Under the seemingly vague phrase “external actors,” the report clearly has that country in mind. As the monkey says in a famous Soviet cartoon: “We won’t say who it was, but it was the little elephant.”
Read also
Otherwise, how can one explain the fact that these supposedly sinister forces are blamed for discrediting the establishment of peace and for actions aimed at influencing TRIPP? Turkey and Azerbaijan are delighted with both “peace” (when they get what they want without firing a shot) and TRIPP. Meanwhile, those who say that peace has not been established, or that TRIPP contains numerous dangers, are said to be acting against Armenia and are “Russian spies.” Of course, the report does not state this in so many words—but that is essentially what it is saying.
One section of the report carries the following title: “The activation of agent networks, agents of influence, other actors engaged in politics under the guise of business activity, spiritual and cultural institutions, and their publicly recognized representatives.” Some clarification is needed here. The “spiritual” part is clear: all clergy who refuse to climb into Pashinyan’s pocket are Russian spies. But what about the “cultural” part? In which musical ensembles, in which theatre troupes, are Russian agents of influence supposedly swarming? Or perhaps it is the members of dance groups—communicating secret information through choreography, as Buba Kastorsky once suggested?
By the way, why is the Foreign Intelligence Service dealing with Russian agents and spies at all, when its main function, as I understand it, is foreign intelligence—collecting and analyzing information abroad in the service of Armenia’s national interests? Agents and “spies” are the domain of counterintelligence—in this case, the National Security Service.
“The aim of such actions is to undermine Armenia’s resilience, weaken the democratic order—by delegitimizing free, fair, and transparent elections or significantly casting a shadow over their legitimacy—and, if successful, to form a ‘convenient’ government that is receptive to influence from external actors acting against Armenia’s interests,” the report states. Kaja Kallas and Hakan Fidan would likely applaud such wording
But why not write it more plainly? Russia wants to sabotage our elections—to plant doubts that Pashinyan was elected fairly, and, if possible, to prevent his re-election. This is a claim that is not substantiated anywhere in the text. Personally, it seems to me that as long as Armenia has not officially withdrawn from the CSTO and the EAEU, as long as the Russian military base remains in Gyumri, and as long as Pashinyan regularly goes to see Putin and makes deferential bows, the Kremlin has no reason to actively fight against the reproduction of the current government. The report in question does not prove otherwise.
Therefore, a speech like this could just as well be delivered by a Civil Contract MP or a government propagandist. In fact, he could write the entire text of this report on his own in a few days—there is nothing here that requires any “intelligence gathering.” Meanwhile, although the number of employees at the Foreign Intelligence Service is officially classified, it is assumed that hundreds of people work there. The results of their work are not visible in this report.
A key state institution should not be engaged in crude propaganda.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
