Nikol Pashinyan, leader of the protests which have been taking place in Armenia in recent weeks, became the country's prime minister on his second attempt on 8 May when 59 deputies voted for him. Exchanging his casual jacket for a formal suit, Pashinyan has wasted no time and has now offered President Armen Sarkisyan to dismiss the National Security Service head and the police chief. These moves, however, are clearly tactical and even reflective: a revolution's leaders often start by removing the previous regime's appointees. As for other moves – first and foremost, those concerning foreign policy – the new prime minister has been extremely careful so far. It should be noted that Pashinyan's first international visit will be to Sochi where he will meet Vladimir Putin (the Yelk party which nominated the revolutionary is opposed to Armenia's membership of the Eurasian Union, while he himself supports it in principle and is therefore planning to attend the union's summit). The new prime minister's has been quite cautious in his statements about Nagorno-Karabkah, although Pashinyan did find time to travel there in a helicopter on 9 May to Baku's dissatisfaction.
Pashinyan's positions as prime minister are not completely clear yet, although it is now possible to discuss the outline of his agenda, Moscow Carnegie Centre analyst Vadim Dubnov told Novaya Gazeta. The situation is actually simplest as far as Nagorno-Karabakh is concerned: Pashinyan will most likely not change anything at all there. "I do not think that we should project the events in Yerevan onto the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. Pashinyan will operate there within the same narrow margins that Sargsyan operated in. When we are discussing Nagorno-Karabakh, it is important to understand that this problem can only be resolved through compromises. Pashinyan cannot make those now (because he does not want to lose popular support), so the most he can do is to continue discussing the technical aspects of this problem. It is the only thing that is currently possible," Dubnov said.
The situation is more complex in terms of Moscow's attitude to Pashinyan. For the first time in many years, Russian officials demonstratively refrained from interfering in the events in another country, while some of them, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, for example, stopped short of endorsing the fraternal people's independent choice.
Rosneft press secretary Mikhail Leontyev was the only person who spoke sharply against it, declaring during the Komsomolskaya Pravda radio station's broadcast that Armenia "can go to hell". This was followed by something previously unseen: presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov started publicly making excuses for the journalist's words.
"Those comments have nothing to do and cannot have anything to do with Moscow's official policy towards Armenia. Neither do they have or could have anything in common with the warm feelings of friendship and fraternity which Russians have always had for the Armenian people."
Moscow's nonintervention is actually a strategy carefully designed at the "very top", Vadim Dubnov believes. "Moscow reacted very correctly. It felt like a command had been given: 'Let them do whatever they want because they cannot get away from us anyway.' There is an understanding that Pashinyan cannot currently afford to sharply confront Moscow," Dubnov said. The new prime minister's problem stems not only from the fact that more than half of Armenia's businesses are linked with Russia, but also the fact that many businessmen act according to Moscow's interests. "Pashinyan will therefore need to discuss his position on any issue with Russia," Dubnov added.
He cited the example of the Association Agreement with the EU, which former Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan signed, as an example of how this works in practice. Dubnov described the agreement as a "castrated" one, noting that Moscow had decided that the format was admissible. He believes that the policy of relations between the two countries will continue to be based on similar modes of "consultation".
Formulating his own agenda will be Pashinyan's key problem. What does he actually want to achieve through his revolution now that it has succeeded? The new Armenian prime minister is yet to formulate an understanding of future goals of domestic and foreign policies, although experts already feel that Pashinyan will not become either Saakashvili or Yushchenko for Armenia and Russia. "On the other hand, I do not quite understand how one can reform Armenia [in its current state] without being like them," Dubnov says.