Sept. 21, 2026
**************************************************************
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan spoke on Sept. 17, 2026, at the “Comprehensive Security & Resilience 2026” international conference in Yerevan, organized by the think tank Women & Global Security Architecture. Among those present were the Ambassadors of Great Britain and Finland.
During his lengthy remarks, Pashinyan made a series of statements that are contrary to Armenia’s national interests, admitting that he has made numerous concessions in the hope of achieving an elusive peace. He described his approach as avoidance of the “ping-pong” policy of “mechanical reciprocity.”
Pashinyan’s major mistake is that he foolishly believes — and is trying to convince the gullible Armenian public — that he has established peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. No matter how many times he repeats his false claim of a non-existent peace, Pres. Aliyev refuses to sign the negotiated peace agreement, even after stating that he has dictated all 17 points of the proposed text. Aliyev is not finished with his demands for concessions from Pashinyan. Why should Aliyev stop, seeing that Pashinyan is accepting all of his demands? Even after going to the White House on August 8, 2025, to meet with Pres. Trump and Pashinyan, ostensibly to sign the peace agreement, Aliyev refused to sign it. He merely initialed it.
Without realizing it, Aliyev is doing a big favor for Armenia by refusing to sign the so-called peace agreement which is replete with concessions to Azerbaijan. He has repeatedly demanded that the Republic of Armenia change its constitution, a demand Pashinyan has sheepishly accepted. This demand may seal the fate of the peace agreement if Armenia’s citizens refuse to approve the new constitution in a referendum.
Pashinyan falsely claimed that “basing the country’s foreign and security policies on internationally recognized political and legal principles has helped remove previous obstacles to Armenia’s access to international arms markets.” This is what happens when an incompetent “leader” makes ignorant decisions on behalf of the Republic of Armenia. International arms sales are not based on a country’s boundaries or policies. They are primarily based on the country’s ability to pay for the purchase. No one cares about internal or external problems. If you have the money, that is the only thing that the seller cares about. This is how international trade works. Countries that manufacture weapons are willing to sell them to anyone who has the ability to pay, regardless of the buyer’s violations of human rights or international laws.
The craziest thing Pashinyan said at the conference was: “We were five minutes away from losing the statehood and sovereignty of the Republic of Armenia.” He was referring to Azerbaijan’s occupation of eastern parts of the territory of the Republic of Armenia in September 2022. Azerbaijan was successful in that attack because Pashinyan, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, had given the orders not to return fire when Azeri soldiers crossed Armenia’s borders.
Armenia is now on the verge of collapse because of Pashinyan’s numerous concessions to Azerbaijan which only encourage Aliyev to demand more. Why should he stop when he sees that the Prime Minister of Armenia is willing to give him everything he asks for? Until Pashinyan came to power in 2018, Armenia was able to defend its territory and sovereignty. Because of Pashinyan’s incompetent leadership and provocative actions and statements against Azerbaijan, Artsakh was lost, and soon, perhaps, Armenia will be as well.
In his speech, Pashinyan attacked an unnamed history teacher who reportedly told his students: “Children, know that you must grow up and go to liberate Moush and Van.” No one knows whether this story is true, but the problem is that Pashinyan, who single-handedly makes all decisions for the country, is now trying to dictate what one teacher supposedly told his students. Pashinyan has no right to interfere in what happens in a classroom. He has much more critical issues to be concerned with. He has not understood that individuals have the freedom to express themselves in a democratic country. No government official should pressure the people on what subject they can talk about. The situation is completely different when it comes to what declarations the Prime Minister makes. He should neither demand Armenian lands from Turkey nor say that he does not have such demands. What a regular persons says has no consequence. But, what the Prime Minister says can have serious political and military consequences. Because of that, he should simply remain quiet.
**************************************************************
2- US Army “Future”: Invade Azerbaijan
Observers give different reasons for why Azerbaijan was picked for the simulated invasion. Some say the country’s varied terrain provided an excellent testing ground for the Army’s $200 billion “Future Combat Systems.” Others believe that the U.S. “now faces a new reality embodied in the Caspian Sea scenario,” centered in Azerbaijan. No one suggests that the country is in any imminent danger of American attack.
A July, 2006 “Operational Requirements Document,” obtained by DANGER ROOM, outlines out a series of simulations and training exercises that helped form the technical and operational foundation for Future Combat Systems. These trials were all based on Azerbaijan’s “Caspian Sea scenario.” Most involve the taking of the capital city, Baku.
Earlier war games were set in other locations — places where American troops might some day seem to be more likely to fight. Those included a “North Korean Architecture Analysis,” to see if a new kind of munitions launch system was feasible. Another, set “in the 2010(+) time frame,” evaluated “battle command” systems in “the complex terrain of the Balkans.”
But what makes the Azerbaijan model different is that almost every component of the massive Future Combat Systems effort — from the “Infantry Carrier Vehicles” to the packbackable robots to the flying drones to the next-generation mortars to the commander’s rolling headquarters — had their “mission profiles… based on three Major Combat Operations (MCOs: 1, 2, 3) conducted within the Caspian Sea scenario.”
Army planners then used these mission profiles to figure out how the system might work in combat. Take the Infantry Carrier Vehicle’s profile, as an example. Based on a series of simulated operations in Azerbaijan, each approximately 70 hours long, the Army decided that the vehicle would typically fire 157.7 rounds from its primary weapon; use its “active protection system” to ward off enemy grenades 8.3 times; be subject to 5.3 hours of chemical, biological, radiological, on nuclear “overpressure”; and have troops get out of the vehicle 13 times.
These profiles then provide the “rationale” for almost everything within Future Combat Systems. They serve as key “source document[s]” on planning for everything from logisitics to testing to manpower needs.
Azerbaijan was picked as the FCS model because “the nation now faces a new reality embodied in the Caspian Sea scenario,” Army consultant Clyde T. Wilson in an *Armor *magazine article.
Wilson doesn’t specify which nation “County C” represents in this scenario. But, according to the *Washington Post’s *William Arkin, “the United States and Britain have been conducting war games and contingency planning under a Caspian Sea scenario that could also pave the way for northern operations against Iran.
This Naval Postgraduate School paper, on the other hand, says that Azerbaijan was picked for its “complex terrain… limited avenues of approach with fast changing relief, such as mountainous terrain.” That kind of topography “taxes the mobility and agility of the FCS. With a limited road network, limited infrastructure, and steep, mountainous terrain, the FCS is placed in a difficult scenario which it must overcome.”
**************************************************************
3- Trump meets with Armenian religious leaders in U.S.
U.S. President Donald Trump met with Armenian religious leaders in the United States and Ambassador of the Republic of Armenia to the United States Narek Mkrtchyan.
The meeting was attended by Archbishop Hovnan Derderian and Bishop Mesrop Parsamyan, leaders of the Western and Eastern Dioceses of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the United States; Archbishop Anoushavan Tanielian and Archbishop Gegham Khacherian, leaders of the Eastern and Western Dioceses of the Armenian Apostolic Church under the Catholicosate of the Great House of Cilicia; Bishop Mikael Mouradian, Eparch of the Armenian Catholic Eparchy of the United States and Canada; and Reverend Hendrik Shahnazarian, Minister of the Armenian Evangelical Union of North America.
A statement issued by the Embassy of the Republic of Armenia in the United States says that during the meeting, views were exchanged on Armenia-U.S. relations, the Christian-civilizational ties between the two peoples, religious freedom, as well as efforts aimed at establishing peace and stability.
The need to establish peace and strengthen mutual understanding between peoples was emphasized, highlighting the importance of faith and spiritual values in this process.
The Armenian religious leaders offered a collective prayer and sought God’s blessing for the well-being and future of the peoples of Armenia and the United States, and for friendship between the two countries.
In their prayer, the religious leaders also addressed efforts aimed at establishing peace, emphasizing U.S. President Donald Trump’s contribution to the peace process in Armenia.
**************************************************************
4- EUROPEAN COURT VERDICT: “SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT INVESTIGATION INTO CONSCRIPT’S DEATH WHILE ON DUTY”
Margaryan v. Armenia
In the Chamber’s judgment1 in the case of Margaryan v. Armenia (application
no. 54266/17) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
violations of Articles 2 (right to life/investigation) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of
the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned the death of a conscript while on duty in 2014. He had been found in a
trench near to his sentry post, with a gunshot injury to his chest.
The European Court found in particular that the investigation had not provided a plausible
explanation for the conscript’s death. The authorities’ conclusion that he had taken his own
life had mainly been based on a posthumous psychiatric report referring to witness
statements about his “strange behaviour”, despite that being in contradiction with his military
superiors’ assessments of him while he had been alive. The authorities had therefore closed
the investigation on the basis of what could be described as hastily reached conclusions,
without having seriously examined any other possible scenario. The Court also found that the
conscript’s father, the applicant in this case, had had no legal avenue in Armenia to establish
State liability for the death of his son, nor claim compensation.
The Court held that Armenia was to pay the applicant 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-
pecuniary damage.
PRINCIPAL FACTS
AND COMPLAINTS
The applicant, Pertch Margaryan, is an Armenian national who was born in 1963 and lives in
Gyumri (Armenia).
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any
party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers
whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the
referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.His son, A. Margaryan, was drafted into the
Armenian army in December 2013 and assigned to a military unit. One year later, on 4 December 2014,
he was found in a trench near to his sentry post, with a gunshot injury to his chest.
The authorities immediately initiated criminal proceedings, examining the scene of the
incident, ordering a post-mortem examination and questioning witnesses.
In February 2015 the post-mortem report stated that the cause of death was a ballistic injury
to the chest from front to back. Another report confirmed that the cartridge found at the
scene had been fired from A. Margaryan’s assault rifle. No identifiable fingerprints were found
on the rifle. Of four servicemen who had been tested for gunshot residue, one had tested
positive.
In November 2015 the investigating authority ordered a posthumous psychological and
psychiatric assessment of A. Margaryan. The ensuing report referred to witness statements
about his “strange behaviour” and concluded that he had a “high degree of personal
maladjustment” which, according to experts, had led to him resorting to “a devastating act
killing himself.”.
Basing their decision mainly on that report, the authorities went on to terminate the criminal
investigation in February 2016.
The applicant appealed against this decision to the prosecutor, arguing among other things,
that there had been no proper investigation into the possibility that his son had been targeted
in retaliation for his testimony in a criminal case. He also questioned the identical statements
by his son’s fellow servicemen suggesting that he had been acting strangely, while his military
command had observed nothing out of the ordinary in his behaviour and had continued to
place him on duty with a firearm.
This appeal was dismissed and the applicant’s subsequent appeals before the courts seeking
to set that decision aside were unsuccessful.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention, Mr Margaryan complained
about his son’s death and the subsequent investigation which, he argued, had left a number
of important questions unanswered. Also relying on Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)
of the Convention, he alleged in particular that there had been no possibility under Armenian
law of claiming compensation from the State for the loss of his son.
OUTCOME
REASONING OF THE COURT
The Court concluded that the investigation into A. Margaryan’s death, although taking only
just over a year to complete, had been seriously deficient. It found a number of major
shortcomings and unexplained discrepancies.
In particular, the investigation had failed to clarify when the servicemen had discovered A.
Margaryan, if and at what time they had heard a gunshot and whether he had already died
when they had found him. Nor was any adequate explanation given for the lack of fingerprints,
including the alleged suicide victim’s, on the rifle. Experts failed to determine the distance
from which the shot/s had been fired, which could have ruled out that another person had
been responsible for firing the fatal shot. Swabs for gunshot residue had only been taken from
four servicemen, while there had been no follow-up to the test that had come up positive.
Moreover, the decision to terminate the criminal proceedings had largely been based on the
posthumous psychiatric report, which had been drawn up with limited evidence in particular
selected witness statements describing A. Margaryan’s behaviour as “strange”. Such an
assessment had, however, completely contradicted the records prior to and following his
2conscription, according to which he had been considered as a stable individual who had
adapted to military life.
The authorities had failed to examine other scenarios, which would have been all the more
important given the inconclusive material to substantiate the hypothesis of suicide.
Despite the applicant raising a number of detailed questions, the national courts had
summarily dismissed his appeals.
The Court reiterated that authorities should not rely on hasty or ill-founded conclusions to
close an investigation. It concluded that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the
Convention in so far as the obligation to ensure an effective investigation was concerned.
As the investigation’s conclusions had been unreliable, the Court considered that the
authorities had not provided a plausible explanation for the death of the applicant’s son in
their care, in further violation of Article 2 of the Convention.
Lastly, the Court noted that there was no legal avenue in Armenia to have liability on the part
of State officials or bodies established for the death of a person under the authorities’ care,
independent of the results of the criminal investigation. As a result, the possibility to claim for
compensation from the State depended on whether the criminal proceedings had resulted in
the prosecution and/or conviction of a State official or any other person. The Court found that
that had set too high a standard of liability for obtaining compensation. It therefore found
that there had been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of a legal
possibility for the applicant of claiming compensation for the breach of his son’s right to life.
PROCEDURE
AND COMPOSITION OF THE COURT
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 July 2017.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Kateřina Šimáčková (the Czech Republic), President,
Gilberto Felici (San Marino),
Andreas Zünd (Switzerland),
Mykola Gnatovskyy (Ukraine),
Vahe Grigoryan (Armenia),
Sébastien Biancheri (Monaco),
Nicholas Emiliou (Cyprus),
and also Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar.
The Court’s judgments finding a violation are binding on the State concerned. The Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe, the executive body of the Council of Europe, supported
by the Department for the Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, is
**************************************************************
5- Niagara Falls illuminated in Armenian flag colors on Independence Day
Niagara Falls will be illuminated in the colors of the Armenian flag on September 21 to mark the 35th anniversary of Armenia’s independence, the Armenian Embassy in Canada said.
“On the occasion of the 35th anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Armenia, Niagara Falls will be illuminated in the colors of the Armenian flag on September 21 at 10:00 p.m. We look forward to celebrating this special occasion with you,” the embassy said in a press release.
**************************************************************
6- Syrian-Armenian philanthropist donates 1491 manuscript to Matenadaran
Armenpress
Syrian-Armenian businessman and philanthropist Gabriel Chemberjian has donated to Matenadaran a Sharaknots (Hymnal) copied in 1491.
He dedicated the donation to the memory of his late wife, Anzhel Chemberjian.
Mesrop Mashtots Research Institute of Ancient Manuscripts (Matenadaran) said in a press release that the manuscript was discovered by its director during a visit to Vienna.
“The newly acquired manuscript is a Sharaknots with Armenian neumes (khazs), copied in the village of Am in the province of Bitlis (scribe: Priest Hovhannes). To date, the village of Am has been mentioned only once in manuscript sources, without a precise indication of its location. In 1497, Hovhannes, the same scribe, copied a Gospel there, which is also preserved at Matenadaran. Thus, this newly donated manuscript is not only the earliest known example created by the same scribe in the same village, but also the only one in whose principal colophon the scribe Hovhannes precisely identifies the location of the village of Am as being in the province of Bitlis,” the Matenadaran said.
**************************************************************
**************************************************************
If you wish to read daily
updated Armenian news and commentary,
Please send me your email
address: sassoun@pacbell.net
Website:
TheCaliforniaCourier.com
**************************************************************
—