Russian Denials and Independent Narratives After the Surmalu Market Tragedy

No time to read?
Get a summary

The Russian Federation’s diplomatic mission issued a firm denial of any involvement by Russian entities in the Surmalu market tragedy, while stressing the country’s active role in assisting after the blast. Officials called for restraint from local media and urged authorities to address hostile remarks that could strain Russian-Armenian relations.

According to the embassy’s press service, there is outrage over circulating claims that Russian structures participated in the events at the Surmalu shopping center on August 14. The statement described such accusations as unfounded and harmful.

The message from the Russian diplomatic mission framed these rumors as a provocation by political forces seeking to undermine the enduring Russian-Armenian alliance. It called on Armenian officials to curb public commentary on the matter and to push back against hostile messaging.

It was noted that the Russian-Armenian Humanitarian Center participated in relief efforts from the earliest moments following the incident.

The explosion at Surmalu in Yerevan occurred in the afternoon of August 14 when a pyrotechnic device detonated within the building, leading to the collapse of structures. Local authorities reported 16 fatalities, including a pregnant woman and her young child, with 62 people injured. Seventeen individuals remained unaccounted for at the time, and one Russian citizen among the missing was later located. By the morning of August 16, five victims were hospitalized in Yerevan. Health officials described the patients as having fractures of the upper extremities and noted ongoing surgeries, with overall conditions considered satisfactory according to the Armenian health ministry.

Later, Russian President Vladimir Putin conveyed condolences to Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan concerning the tragedy in Yerevan. In a message from the Kremlin, he expressed sympathy to the families of the victims and wished a speedy recovery to all affected.

Origins of the narrative and the Russian trace

On August 15, Armenians learned of a possible terrorist attack during briefings by Armen Pambukhchyan, head of Armenia’s Emergency Service. He suggested that the incident could involve a deliberate act beyond an accidental fire or explosion.

Observers noted that rumors about Russian involvement gained traction after coverage by a Russian blogger known for reporting on military topics. One post initially described the death of a young girl as a result of the blast; Armenian health authorities subsequently refuted the account. The blogger continued to assert firsthand eyewitness testimony of a missing child, prompting a polarizing reaction among the public.

Coverage by the Russian Life portal also fed speculation due to discrepancies in timing. Some readers interpreted a broadcast as presenting information ahead of the explosion, though editors later clarified timing differences across time zones. Armenian outlets and social networks continued to question the portal’s timing and push a narrative of planned information disruption.

Telegram channel Bagramyan 26 publicly accused the Russian embassy of attempting to influence Armenia’s political climate. The channel linked Mika Badlanyan, an associate of the blogger, to Russian authorities and described the spread of misleading claims as support from foreign actors.

In response to these allegations, the Russian embassy issued a formal note to the Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on August 17, and the Bagramyan channel subsequently questioned the involvement of Russian diplomats. The channel criticized what it called the deployment of hostile rhetoric to target Russian institutions and questioned the responsibility of diplomats and embassy staff for the spread of misinformation.

Following the embassy’s denial, public commentary on the channel shifted. The channel’s posts questioned the basis for attributing responsibility to Russia, asking what concrete evidence existed and what kind of reaction was expected for an unfounded claim. The episode highlighted tensions between media narratives and official positions as the investigation continued.

No time to read?
Get a summary
Previous Article

Rings of Power: Prime Video's Bold Return to Middle-earth

Next Article

Fortified Lines and Frontier Defense in Ukraine