The symbol of Artsakh “We are our mountains” monument is in danger of being completely destroyed. Artsakh’s cultural heritage ombudsman, vice-president of “Azkayin” historical and cultural NGO Hovik Avanesov calls out about this.

“We are our mountains” monument, which is also known as “Grandfather and Grandfather” (Mamik and Papik in Western Armenian), is one of the symbolic monuments of Armenian identity, historical memory and cultural heritage. It was created in 1967 by sculptor Sargis Baghdasaryan and architect Yuri Hakobyan. This monument made of red tuff, about 9 meters high, is placed on the top of the hill, symbolizing the inseparable blood relation between Artsakh land and people.

The sculpture represents elderly Artsakh spouses in traditional costumes, standing shoulder to shoulder, with a proud and steadfast attitude. It does not have a pedestal, it seems to come from the soil itself, embodying the deep roots of the people and the inseparable connection with the motherland. It is no coincidence that this work has also received high praise on international platforms, being presented at a prestigious exhibition organized in the Italian city of Carrara and being recognized as a world cultural asset.

However, the history of the monument is not limited only to cultural achievements. Back in the Soviet years, it faced political resistance in the face of open opposition from the leadership of Soviet Azerbaijan. Despite these pressures, the monument was erected, becoming a symbol not only of art, but also of resistance.

On September 19, 2023, just days after the large-scale military operations unleashed against Artsakh by the Turkish-Azerbaijani terrorist tandem and the subsequent complete occupation of Artsakh and the forced displacement of Artsakh people, on September 29, the Azerbaijani forces placed the Azerbaijani flag on the monument on the day of the occupation of Stepanakert, demonstrably violating its historical and cultural significance.

In November 2024, photos and videos shared on social networks documented new cases of vandalism. damages and Armenian-hating, insulting writings were recorded in both the front and back parts of the monument. The surroundings of the monument were also damaged. At the same time, announcements regarding the complete destruction of the monument are actively circulating in the official and unofficial circles of Azerbaijan.

It is noteworthy that a similar scenario has already been applied to St. Jacob’s Church in Stepanakert and St. Astvamor Hovanu’s Cathedral, whose destruction was preceded by propaganda publications with the same content. This circumstance raises serious concern that the “We Are Our Mountains” monument faces the same fate.

—

The other day, information was spread on social networks that the contract soldier son of the head of the security team of the “Strong Armenia” party, detective Artur Avanesyan (Kandaz), was removed from one of the special purpose units of the armed forces.

Ministry of Defense 168.amsources inform that the contract of Artur Avanesyan’s son has expired and it has not been extended. It is possible that this decision of the leadership of the Ministry of Defense is political. Artur Avanesyan himself and “Strong Armenia” did not address this topic.

Let us remind that the head of the security team of the “Strong Armenia” party, colonel-investigator Arthur Avanesyan (Kandaz) on March 31 remindedTaken during Anna Hakobyan’s visit to Tavush on April 1, 2023 the statement that 11,000 deserters was during the 44-day war, stressing. “Our soldiers are not deserters, they fought like lions, and your husband left our soldier defenseless, without a weapon.”

Anna Hakobyan decided not to react don’t leave the detective’s video-reminder, which was followed by Nikol Pashinyan’s the response.

—

US President Donald Trump delivered an annual address on the 111th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, describing the tragic events of 1915 as a Genocide.

“Today we pay tribute to the memory of the countless Armenians who were exiled and brutally killed during the Genocide.

This cruel chapter of human history will remain forever as a testimony of the unbreakable spirit of the Armenian people and the hope underlying Christianity. We pay our respects to the profound strength and determination that Armenians have shown in overcoming the tremendous tragedies of the past and building a better future defined by lasting prosperity, security and peace. We stand by them,” said Trump’s message.

In the address, Donald Trump also spoke about the relations with Armenia and the Peace Council he created, noting that the USA and Armenia will continue working together to build a safer and more prosperous world. “My administration is strengthening our strategic partnership, creating significant opportunities for the Armenian people and promoting long-term stability throughout the South Caucasus region. And now, Americans and Armenians stand side by side in the historic Peace Council, united in our goal to usher in a new era of peace through force,” Trump said.

The Armenian Committee of America has stated that it “strongly condemns President Donald Trump’s continued retreat from America’s recognition and commemoration of the Armenian Genocide.”

According to the commission’s executive director Aram Hambaryan, Trump once again shamefully gave in to Turkish threats, “continuing, for the sixth time, to implement Ankara’s policy of silence against the honest mention of that crime by America, despite the recognition by the White House, Congress, all fifty states and more than a dozen NATO allies.”

“After the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Armenian population of Artsakh by Azerbaijan, in the background of the ongoing occupation of Armenian territories, the mistreatment of Armenian prisoners, and the destruction of Armenian Christian heritage, the United States is obliged not only to tell the truth about the 1915 genocide, but also to stop its complicity in pan-Turkist attempts to end that genocide,” stated the executive director of the American Armenian Dat Office. By the way, in his April 24th address, Nikol Pashinyan mainly used the term “Great Genocide”, using the term genocide in his reference only once. times.

US President Donald Trump’s avoidance of the term “genocide” and the use of the expression “Great Genocide” is, of course, far from being just a linguistic tact. Avoiding the formulation that implies clear responsibility in the domain of international law, Washington pushes the Armenian issue out of the field of legal claims and moves it to the level of ethnic tragedy. This allows Turkey to avoid historical responsibility and continue its current policy towards Armenia without international legal consequences.

The current American administration’s “mediation” efforts between Armenia and Azerbaijan are actually shaping a regional security architecture where the interests of Azerbaijan and Turkey come first.

Trump’s approach implies “peace” at the expense of vital Armenian interests, where Armenia is not considered as a sovereign entity, but as an obstacle in the way of economic deals with the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem, which must do everything to integrate into that sphere of interests. Such a policy contributes to Azerbaijan’s fundamentalist ambitions by legitimizing Azerbaijan’s preconditions and other demands.

The supremacy of Turkish-Azerbaijani interests by the US subordinates historical justice. By using the term “Great Uprising”, Washington gives a political “green light” for Ankara to continue its pan-Turkist plans, which directly contradict the sovereign development of Armenia. In this context, the American mediation turns into a tool, within the framework of which Yerevan must give up its national ambitions for the sake of energy and logistics projects beneficial for the West.

Ultimately, such a political line leads to the pulverization of Armenia’s international subjectivity. When a superpower avoids legal assessments and adapts to the aggressor’s agenda, it effectively isolates Armenia, leaving it without real alliance guarantees. This is not a mediation of peace, but a preparation for the concession of positions, where the interest of the Republic of Armenia is sacrificed for the sake of strengthening the Turkish hegemony in the region and American short-term pragmatic interests.

—

On April 20, with the article “What is behind Onik Gasparyan’s offer to speak at a closed meeting, what open questions are waiting for his open answer?” by article we referred to Onik Gasparyan, the former head of the General Staff of the RA Armed Forces statement-offer, which was the answer of the former Minister of Defense of the Republic of Armenia Seyran Ohanyan and media mogul Aram Gabrielyanov’s episodic statements and “declassifications” related to the 44-day war.

As of now, the authorities have ignored or rejected the proposal of the former head of the State Security Service to organize a closed meeting, to which Onik Gasparyan suggests involving key political and military positions held during the 2020 war, political and public figures with appropriate permission to access data containing state and service secrets, and relatives of dead and missing servicemen.

We asked the question in our article: what did the former head of the State Security Service not say during his two-day and nearly 10-hour interrogation at the 44-day investigative commission? 168.amthe wrote also, that the written analysis of Onik Gasparyan, the former head of the RA Armed Forces General Directorate, was attached to the report of the investigative commission headed by Andranik Kocharyan, with a limit of 70-80 pages.

And although the parliamentary opposition did not participate in the commission’s work, opposition MPs, for example, Gegham Manukyan, Tigran Abrahamyan, got acquainted with the report and the argued analysis of Onik Gasparyan.

Therefore 168.amhas tried From Tigran Abrahamyan, secretary of the NA “I have the honor” faction to find out if there is something that was not discussed by the former head of the General Assembly Onik Gasparyan, perhaps he expects that the opposition will have the opportunity to ask him questions this time, although their answers will not be reflected in the report.

– Onik Gasparyan’s speech, which is presented in the report and in a separate appendix, naturally expresses his approach, ideas about his decisions and actions during the war, and this happened in the presence of CP figures. A political group that is most responsible for the outcome of the 44-day war and its severe consequences. And what each official talks about his decisions and actions is another thing, and what is the reality is completely different. And in this situation, if Onik Gasparyan has something additional to say, especially if it is of great importance to the public, then it must be said, and sincerity and the truth will be appreciated afterwards.

– At the moment, the authorities consider the closed meeting pointless. In this case, how do you imagine the closed meeting of the former head of the General Assembly with the opposition? By the way, were there any such impulses from Onik Gasparyan?

– From the beginning, the position of our political force was that a closed-format meeting with the presence or participation of CP members will not solve any problem, and I myself have announced that I am not going to be a participant in such a meeting. If Onik Gasparyan considers that he has something important to say in terms of public interest and would like to meet, then the issue of its format will naturally be a subject of discussion.

– By the way, the close circle of the former head of the General Staff rushed to say that his demand to speak publicly is not correct, what is it, should he publicly tell what happened during the 44-day war?

– I don’t even want to know who thinks that there is no need for the former head of the General Directorate to speak publicly, perhaps everyone has their own approach. But we must not forget that Onik Gasparyan was a military man with the highest status, and he definitely has something to say to the public. It is clear to all of us that there are issues that can represent state and military secrets, but Pashinyan and his teammates made “declassifications” related to the circumstances of the war during the 6 years after the war, not to mention that quite a lot of time has passed, and some issues and decisions may not have the significance they had 6 years ago. Who is this? From this point of view, not speaking publicly can be seen as avoidance in terms of coming into direct contact with the public.

– What questions do you personally have to ask the former head of the GSH?

– Naturally, there are such questions:

First, regardless of the reports at that time, when the probability of war was high, why weren’t the troops brought to “preparation number one” in time, especially when, according to Nikol Pashinyan, reliable information about the start of the war was received on September 25, 2020?

Second, why is he not talking about the September 13 report of the National Security Service of Artsakh, because, according to reports, reliable information about the start of the war was recorded on that day, even probable days?

Third, According to Onik Gasparyan, why was there no result after the February 2021 statement of the General Staff?

fourth, was there pressure on him from outside to express his position and expose Pashinyan’s crime?

– I have other questions, but now we are not talking about them. And you, I’m sure, have ever communicated with Onik Gasparyan, possibly even long after the war, what impression did you get, as a military man in general, is his silence only due to the desire not to disclose information containing state secrets?

– Some may consider me an optimist, but, according to me, the reason for Onik Gasparyan’s not speaking is that, in his opinion, voicing anything in the case of the Pashinyan government will not solve any problem. And maybe that’s why he doesn’t want to talk, but as an official with great responsibility, if not completely, then in general terms, he should express what he has to say publicly.

—

The brutality with which Pashinyan conducts the campaign, violating the laws, is due to the fact that he is afraid of defeat. There is a big gray cardinal in these elections, the 50% of the electorate that is still undecided. Pashinyan is afraid that in the last days all these people will turn against him, go and vote. He is afraid of a large turnout. Political forces do not fight for opinions. One force is fighting so that few people go to the elections, only its followers, other forces are fighting so that many people go to the elections. 168TVof « expressed such an opinion during the program Former RA Prime Minister Hrant Bagratyan.

“The participation index will be the key topic of these elections. Violating all laws, Pashinyan is trying to reproduce himself today. The problem of the opposition should be to explain that if he is re-elected, there will be no Armenia after that, but Pashinyan will be personally saved, because after being elected, he will, of course, hand over Armenia completely to Azerbaijan and Turkey,” said the politician.

“Alen Simonyan recently returned from Turkey and said: Azerbaijan prevents us from making friends with Turkey. That person is absolutely unacceptable as a statesman, but even he implies and admits that they are not right.

It is certain that Pashinyan would have called him after that and said bitter words, saying, “Why are you saying such things, give me hope that everything is fine?” Nothing is good. He wrote the word peace, drew a heart, but there is no contract. If it is signed by some miracle, there is no guarantee in terms of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia,” Bagratyan noted.

According to the opposition figure, there are currently two forces that are open opposition, that is, they are talking about removing Pashinyan from power and punishing him after coming to power.

“They are Samvel Karapetyan’s “Strong Armenia” and Robert Kocharyan’s “Armenia” blocs. Other forces do not talk about this.

For example, one force says: we will do it in a way that will be good for all of us, but this is not a political approach. Can the political force take part in the election and say that we will do it in such a way that it will be bad for all of us? Maybe we should thank CP that there are no false promises and that they will do what they say. Under these conditions, when the country was taken out of the security system, and our opponent is in the security system, what kind of peace will there be? There is no peace in the world.”

“If there are two neighboring countries, one weak and the other strong, who will protect you?” Macron announced the other day that they will not do anything for Armenia. Let’s thank him because, unlike Clemenceau, who made promises of a state to the Armenians of Cilicia a hundred years ago, Macron clearly says: don’t be fooled. He has such problems with Turkey that he will never allow himself to even make a proper statement about Armenia,” said Hrant Bagratyan.

Details in the video.

—

“Pressing” in the program Satik Seyranyan’s guest political scientist, representative of the pre-election list of the “Prosperous Armenia” party, chairman of the “Democratic Alternative” party Suren Surenyants is

The main points of the interview are below.

• Nikol Pashinyan’s texts related to April 24 are more and more similar to Erdogan’s texts. If he publishes such texts several times, there will be no difference in content. Moreover, he consistently avoids using the word “genocide,” saying Genocide instead. In his texts, a veiled arrow is pointed in the direction of Russia, as if we are victims of Russia. The theses of Nikol Pashinyan and his team are the same false theses of Turkish rejectionist historiography. Nikol Pashinyan fulfills the mission of Aliyev’s lower spokesman. Yes, the Armenian people have something to think about, but with the message that His Holiness made, how did it happen that 100 years after the genocide, we found ourselves in the same regime, how did we manage to bring them to power? The Armenian people attribute any ugliness to the pocket of the Armenian people, throw it into their pocket.

• We are dealing with a conjunctural person who lives only with the pain of keeping his chair.

• No leader of the newly independent Republic of Armenia has demanded the return of the territories of the lost homeland. Moreover, Armenia has never had any territorial ambitions towards Azerbaijan either. All 3 former presidents of Armenia stated that they have no territorial claims against Turkey, and they see the settlement of Armenian-Turkish relations within the framework of the resolution without preconditions. 

• Pashinyan was re-elected, the possibility of an economic war with Russia is inevitable, the tension with Iran will continue. 

• Nikol Pashinyan was the only leader who fetishized the Treaty of Sevres in a rather vulgar way, thereby legitimizing Turkey’s military participation in the 44-day war. 

• Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Azerbaijani relations have always been interconnected. Since Nikol Pashinyan had to make unilateral concessions in favor of Azerbaijan, those negotiations failed. Now Alen Simonyan accuses Azerbaijan of obstructing the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations. Today, the decision-making center of gravity in Armenia is in Baku, and Azerbaijan reacts to the burning of the Turkish flag, because Turkey has neither time nor opportunity to look in the direction of Armenia. 

• Nikol Pashinyan announced that he will refuse to speak about the act of vandalism of the Stepanakert Cathedral on international platforms. After that, a group of young people burn the flag of Turkey during a procession with torches, and Nikol Pashinyan very quickly calls it a provocation, bringing the reaction of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan directly said: from now on we are an actor in your internal affairs. 

• Nikol Pashinyan replaced the Russian umbrella with a Turkish-Azerbaijani roof. In the public part of the Pashinyan-Putin conversation, Putin’s conversation was not with Pashinyan, but with the Armenian people, so that the Armenians do not put the responsibility in their pockets once again. Pashinyan was told in Moscow that we will no longer tolerate the policy of sitting on two chairs and we will not allow you to turn Russia into a small coin to justify your lousy policy. Perhaps for the first time during the entire period of his power, Pashinyan felt that the emphasis of Russian policy has changed, and he started taking insurance steps. But I don’t think Moscow anymore believe in tearsis

• Russia’s position became tougher due to the developments in the region around Iran, due to the establishment of a new status quo. Iran got an opportunity to influence regional and world politics. Basically, Iran has targeted the territories of all states in the region, except Armenia.

• Overchuk’s mention of the Treaty of Turkmencha meant that

Iran and Russia will not allow any change to the status quo, it means burying TRIPP in the fog: 

• Nikol Pashinyan has found himself in a situation where any of his public expressions will be directed against him. That has changed in Russian politics.

• By accepting the new mission of European observers in the Armenian National Assembly elections, you legitimize any Russian interference. As a result, as a result of these elections, our society will become more polarized, our subjectivity will decrease even more.

• Putin’s April 24 message is more adequate than Pashinyan’s revisionist message. On the day of their sorrow, a solid diplomatic text was sent from Russia to the friendly Armenian people at the presidential level, in which the causes and consequences of the Genocide were revealed. Russia and France are countries with serious traditions and do not condition their attitude towards this or that event and Armenia by the existence of this or that government, because they have long-term plans and interests related to Armenia. They have not changed, we have changed, deviating from our state and national plans.

• Do you think that Russia and France handed over Artsakh? Of course not. They are co-chairmen, they negotiated until a nation-destroying scourge appeared, who gave Artsakh to Azerbaijan.:

• There was no institute of heir to power in Armenia. Kocharyan was not the heir of Levon Ter-Petrosyan, nor was Serzh Sargsyan the heir of Robert Kocharyan. In addition, it is not appropriate for any president to discuss any domestic political issue in front of a foreign audience. Thirdly, at this pre-election stage, when all of us with the opposition forces have a single target, I consider it illiterate to point out another target, that too in front of a foreign audience. Nikol Pashinyan is engaged in the revision of history, there is no need to help him in that matter. As for the internal political ratings, let me first say that the failure of any opposition pole will be the failure of all of us, but with all due respect to the “Armenia” bloc, this election campaign has other leaders, the centers formed around Samvel Karapetyan and Gagik Tsarukyan. Facts cannot be ignored. 2021 Kocharyan was a favorite, now he is not a favorite:

• The tragic destruction of Artsakh objectively closed the historical period of 3 presidents in the internal political life of Armenia. This is a tragedy and I am sorry to say this. All their activities are related to the Artsakh issue, and if there is no result of their activities, no rebranding will save the aged people from re-entering the electoral struggle.

• There is a pronounced deficit of justice in the villages. Starting from the district administration, no issue is resolved. The entire state apparatus is corrupt, coupled with bespredel. People are on the verge of social oppression, small and medium businesses are facing destruction. If the turnover tax structure is not reviewed, after 1 year there will be no small and medium business. People are catastrophically afraid of the gas price increase, especially after the Putin-Pashinyan meeting, and you can’t deceive people either, tell them to be calm. I am sure that social health and pension programs will be canceled after June 7. People do not believe in Pashinyan’s peace. People say directly, I convey Nikol, people did not believe in your peace, but in your treachery, that you made an agreement with Aliyev not to shoot now:

• A significant part of society feels that the church is the only institution left in our civilization. And the fact that there is a question of changing the Reverend in the KP program is an unconstitutional intervention, and on that basis, the KP could not be registered.

• I have bad news for Nikol Pashinyan: anti-Russian sentiment has experienced a significant retreat. The public sees that the West is not democratic at all because the “democratic” West is killing baby girls in neighboring Iran.

• If Nikol was reinstated, even Hajiyev’s permission would be needed to appoint Malatia or Ajapniak district head.

Details in the video.

—