During a press conference held in Yerevan, a member of one of the French media outlets asked French President Emmanuel Macron a question, referring to the internal political developments and the upcoming parliamentary elections in Armenia. The reporter reminded that Macron has repeatedly spoken about the inadmissibility of external influences, in particular, mentioning the risk of Russian interference, and asked whether the open support for Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan just a month before the elections could be considered as foreign interference in the country's internal affairs.

"You spoke about Russian interference before the upcoming elections in Armenia. You support the [Armenian] prime minister a month before the elections. Is your support also not foreign interference?" asked the reporter.

Past daily of Armenia writes as follows in this regard: "The wording of the question itself is noteworthy, since it is not voiced by external observers, but by a representative of the French information field itself. This shows that even within France there are different assessments of the policy pursued by official Paris, especially in cases where it concerns the internal processes of other states.

Macron, responding to the question, noted that one cannot talk about interference, presenting his actions as colleague support and protection of democratic values.

However, this comment did not close the discussion, but on the contrary, further emphasized the sensitivity of the topic.

In political and expert circles, such situations are often viewed not only at the level of statements, but also from the point of view of the possible interests behind them. In the case of Armenia, the point of view is also voiced that the French economic presence in the country can play a role in shaping political emphases.

In particular, attention is drawn to the activities [in Armenia] of the [French] water supply company Veolia, which has been regularly criticized in recent years.

In this context, a broader discussion is taking shape about where the line between colleague support and interference in internal affairs is drawn. The question remains open, especially in conditions when political statements coincide with specific economic interests, and electoral processes become an important node in the center of external attention.

It should be noted that the Europeans also have a rapid response team in Armenia, which supposedly fights hybrid attacks and other similar phenomena. Besides that, it is on their initiative that Armenian [TV] channels and social network pages and posts are being blocked, which do not satisfy the current government in terms of political support and have an oppositional orientation. Isn’t such a process a clear interference in the elections, let alone freedom of speech or democracy?”