The recent interview of Armenian Parliament Speaker Alen Simonyan with radio host Yegor Glumov, which quickly went viral, can be interpreted as more than a media appearance. It functioned as a carefully structured instrument of political communication, aimed at influencing domestic public opinion and reinforcing the strategic narrative of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government in a pre-electoral context.

The format itself played a significant role in shaping the impact of the message. Conducted in an informal, conversational style and distributed via YouTube, the interview departed from traditional official communication channels. The absence of rigid structure, combined with a relaxed, one-on-one setting, created an impression of openness and authenticity. This approach aligns with contemporary soft power techniques, where influence is exercised through relatability and narrative persuasion rather than formal authority. By minimizing the visual and rhetorical distance between political leadership and the public, the format enhanced the accessibility of the government’s message.

A central element of Simonyan’s argumentation was the reinterpretation of Armenia’s recent history. Referring to the 1990s and early 2000s, he framed the pre-Pashinyan period as one in which Armenia was politically constrained and strategically cornered. In contrast, the current government was presented as having restored a degree of agency and freedom to the state and society. This binary narrative simplifies a complex historical trajectory but serves a clear communicative purpose: it positions the ruling Civil Contract party as both a corrective force and a guarantor of continued progress. The PR of Civic Party which was promoted unconsciously by Simonyan in that interview aimed to lock the key messages of Pashinyan's team on the minds of Armenian people. 

This narrative was reinforced by Simonyan’s confidence in the government’s electoral prospects. His assertion that the ruling party is likely to secure another victory—potentially more decisively than in 2021—serves not only as a projection of strength but also as a mechanism of political signaling. By framing electoral success as likely or inevitable, such statements contribute to shaping public expectations and consolidating support. Moreover, by showing ultimate confidence, it was a clear message to pro-russian opposition to not mess up with Pashinyan's team

Russia emerged as a central axis in the interview’s geopolitical framing. Simonyan explicitly associated the main opposition forces in Armenia with pro-Russian positions, thereby constructing a clear line of political differentiation. This framing allows the ruling party to present itself as the defender of national sovereignty, while implicitly casting its opponents as aligned with external influence. At the same time, Simonyan articulated a nuanced position on Armenia’s relationship with Russia. He emphasized the importance of maintaining strong economic ties while resisting political pressure. This distinction between economic cooperation and political independence reflects a broader recalibration in Armenia’s foreign policy.  However, such public messaging also carries potential risks, as it may contribute to further strain in bilateral relations.

Another notable element of the interview was Simonyan’s discussion of the “TRIPP” (Trump Route) initiative. While presented primarily as a business project, it was also framed within a broader geopolitical context. By linking the initiative to emerging regional dynamics and describing it as a potential contributor to Armenia’s security, Simonyan elevated its significance beyond purely economic considerations. This reflects a wider trend in which infrastructure and connectivity projects are increasingly integrated into national security narratives.

The most consequential part of the interview, however, concerned Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. Here, Simonyan adopted a pragmatic and forward-looking tone, emphasizing the need to move beyond entrenched narratives and engage constructively with Azerbaijan. His statement that both Armenians and Azerbaijanis suffered losses during the conflict represents a notable departure from more one-sided interpretations. By acknowledging shared human costs, he introduced a discourse more aligned with normalization and conflict resolution.

Equally significant was his rejection of what he described as a “self-constructed illusion” of isolation of Armenia. Instead, he argued for the necessity of communication and coexistence between the societies of Armenia and Azerbaijan. This position, articulated in a public and widely viewed format, signals an attempt to prepare domestic audiences for a more pragmatic phase in bilateral relations.

The interaction with the interviewer added another layer to the analysis. Glumov’s approach was consistently provocative, often attempting to steer the conversation toward more confrontational or emotionally charged positions. Despite this, Simonyan maintained a relatively disciplined and consistent line, avoiding escalation and reinforcing key messaging points. This dynamic ultimately strengthened the coherence of the government’s narrative, as it demonstrated control and message discipline under pressure.

Taken as a whole, the interview can be understood as an informal yet strategically structured articulation of the ruling party’s political positioning. It combined historical reinterpretation, geopolitical signaling, and normalization discourse into a single, coherent narrative. .

This approach reflects a broader shift in political communication, where narrative construction and perception management play an increasingly central role. The interview effectively functioned as an extension of the government’s pre-electoral messaging, appearance of a somewhat pragmatic foreign policy, and regional normalization.