Author: Elizabeth Jabejian

168TVof “Revue:Today’s guest of the program Dr. John Eibner is president of the human rights organization Christian Solidarity International (CSI).. He joined us from Switzerland.

Aram Sargsyan. Good evening, Mr. Aibner. How are you? 

John Eibner. Good evening. It is very good and wonderful to be with you again. Thank you very much for the invitation to join you this evening. 

Aram Sargsyan. Thank you, it is nice to see you, and as far as I know, you have had quite busy and full days in recent days and these days you accompanied the Armenian delegation from Artsakh/Nagorno Karabakh that visited Switzerland. First of all, would you tell us what was the purpose of this visit, what meetings they had in Switzerland, a country that supports the right of 150,000 Armenians from occupied Artsakh to return to their homeland? What did you discuss with them, what did they discuss with Swiss parliamentarians and other officials?

John Eibner. Very good. You may recall that just a year ago, the Swiss parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling on the Swiss government to convene a conference under international supervision. To create a dialogue platform between the leadership of the forcibly displaced community of Azerbaijan and Artsakh for It was a very simple formula. The fact that it was adopted by parliament as a resolution means that this becomes Swiss foreign policy. The Swiss government now has an obligation to try to organize such a conference.

So the purpose of this visit was, first, to encourage the Swiss government to be energized through the parliamentarians to fulfill their commitment to organize such a conference, and also simply to thank the parliamentarians who voted for this resolution, and especially the committee of 19 parliamentarians, led by Erich Fontobel and Stefan Müller-Altermat, who maintain this support group of parliamentarians and continue to insist that the Swiss government hold this conference: of course, aiming to create conditions so that the people of Artsakh can return to them homeland to live in peace and dignity on their land with their human rights.

In short, that was the purpose of the meeting. So, yesterday afternoon we had a very good meeting with parliamentarians and other activists and stakeholders, during which Ashot Danielyan, who led this small delegation from Artsakh, had the opportunity, first, to thank the Swiss parliamentarians and others who support this, to inform them about the current situation of the Karabakh IDPs, and to assure the Swiss parliamentarians that The Karabakh issue is not closed from the point of view of the people who suffered from it:

We all know that various statesmen including The Prime Minister of Armenia and the President of Azerbaijan say that the Karabakh issue is closed. They want it closed. They have their own political reasons for wanting it closed, but it’s not. And thus, this message was very clearly conveyed by the Speaker of the Artsakh National Assembly, Ashot Danielyan, directly to the Swiss parliamentarians and the public. The issue of Artsakh is not closed.

Aram Sargsyan. And what about Swiss parliamentarians? I mean, do they have the same position that the Karabakh issue is not closed?

John Eibner. Of course they have, because if they thought it was closed, they would never have voted for this resolution. They would never have forced the Swiss government to try to reach this platform of dialogue. If it was closed, that would be the end of the matter. But they know it’s not locked. They know that it is not closed to victims of forced displacement, ethnic-religious cleansing. It is not closed to them, and indeed it is not closed to the world, because basic human rights can never be closed. They are human rights. They are eternal, cosmic. They cannot be closed just because authoritarian leaders say for their own benefit that these human rights issues are closed. They are not closed.

And so the Swiss parliamentarians respect that, and they want to encourage the Swiss government and certainly other governments to lend their support just to create a platform for a dialogue, a dialogue between the leadership of the forcibly displaced community of Azerbaijan and Artsakh. The Armenian government actually has no role in it. The Armenian government is not mentioned in this resolution. It calls for a dialogue between the government of Azerbaijan and the leadership of the forcibly displaced Karabakh community.

That is what the formula calls for, and it does not predetermine the outcome. It doesn’t say this must be the result, or that must be the result. Of course, we would all like to see an outcome that respects the human rights of the displaced Karabakh people. But at this stage we just want to create a dialogue platform, a peace platform for dialogue, and so far the government of Azerbaijan seems to be saying no, saying they are not interested. They say it’s closed. The Armenian government does not seem to want to support the Swiss peace initiative. They also say it’s closed, to them for their own reasons.

Aram Sargsyan. But are there any discussions or attempts to start this platform with Baku? Can we make a brief conclusion that Switzerland, as a rather unique and important player in international relations and in Europe, says that the Karabakh issue is not closed.

John Eibner. Switzerland has said so by virtue of this resolution. Now, what will happen with the Swiss government, how vigorously they will push for the creation of such a platform, what ways they will use to make it happen, some of it is not public, but they have an obligation to try to create it. And we also understand that most of the international community wants this matter closed.

This becomes a problem for the Swiss government because it is difficult for the Swiss government to act as a single actor. There needs to be wider international support for Switzerland as it seeks to create such a platform. But the international community, of course, the Western powers and Turkey and Azerbaijan, including, when I say Western powers, including the heads of state who will be with you next week in Yerevan for the EU summit and the meeting of the heads of state of the European Political Community. Most of them would prefer this issue closed.

Life is easier for them if it is closed. The Armenian and Karabakh problem creates complications for them, and if they can find a way to close the issue forever, they will use that option. But there are voices that say, no, the issue is not closed, and we won’t let them just close the issue.

It will continue as long as there are Karabakh people, it will continue as long as there is the “Christian Solidarity International” organization, and as long as there are Swiss parliamentarians and parliamentarians of other countries, it will remain an open question. You are probably aware that not long after Azerbaijan’s ethno-religious cleansing of Artsakh, the European Parliament also passed its own resolution, and this resolution condemned Azerbaijan very strongly for violating human rights.

Aram Sargsyan. But have they already forgotten?

John Eibner. No, they haven’t forgotten yet. The members of the European Parliament remember that, but perhaps the most important thing in the resolution is that they, like the Swiss parliamentarians, said that there will be no lasting peace if there is no dialogue with the representatives of Nagorno Karabakh.

This is in the EU formula. Now it is not binding on the EU executive, but it expresses the view of the parliament. So we know that there are many voices across Europe who are in favor of trying to create a dialogue between the perpetrators of the actual genocidal crime and the representatives of the victims of the genocidal act in order to settle the matter once and for all on the basis of international human rights law. This is happening now. It’s going to be a long process, as I mentioned, because many states are resisting it.

They find that The Armenian question has plagued European statesmen since the mid-19th century. You can read about it especially in the British Parliament and other sources. The Armenian issue with massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. This issue repeatedly appears on the international agenda. It appears and then there is a period of silence. Then it reappears. Of course, it appeared during the genocide.

Aram Sargsyan. You mean the historically discussed Armenian issue, don’t you?

John Eibner. Yes. They call it the “Armenian question”. And now it’s up again. And Europe would find it very convenient if this matter were closed. And many European states and leaders, elites in Europe, will not mind if it is closed with the “final solution” through ethno-religious cleansing. For them, it is a small price to pay to close an issue that poses certain geopolitical problems and challenges for them. And Today, this issue of Karabakh stands at the center of the Armenian issue.

This issue of Karabakh has huge consequences. You are certainly well aware of the persecution of the Armenian Apostolic Church by the Armenian state. This is largely due to the fact that the Church defends the rights of people from Artsakh who were subjected to ethnic-religious cleansing, Armenian Christians who were expelled from their homeland, who, now that they were expelled from their homeland, and now the traditional methods of Turkey and Azerbaijan to try to destroy historical and cultural monuments, to destroy traces of Armenian civilization, are in progress.

And that is the main reason for this persecution of the Armenian Apostolic Church, because Turkey and Azerbaijan demand it as a condition of the promise of peace. And the government of Armenia, with the encouragement of the Western powers, is ready to fulfill almost any condition that Azerbaijan and Turkey put in front of it. This issue of Karabakh is alive and well. If it was closed, why would Azerbaijan and Turkey bother destroying churches in Karabakh? It is not closed to them. They continue to erase the traces of Armenian culture.

Aram Sargsyan. Including Stepanakert Cathedral.

John Eibner.Including, of course, the Cathedral of the Holy Mother of God. The list goes on, but just recently they openly destroyed one of the major Christian monuments. Unfortunately, it is now a monument, not a functioning church, as people were forcibly evicted from there. But it is not closed to them. The Caucasus Muslim Administration, which is actually an Azerbaijani state apparatus, has recently tried to give Islamic legitimacy to the destruction of these Armenian Christian churches. So while the issue may be closed to Armenia’s prime minister, and Western leaders may prefer it to be closed, it really is closed. not for Turkey and Azerbaijan. The process is ongoing.

Aram Sargsyan. Mr. Eibner, you mentioned a number of key topics that are the main issues of our interview today, including the persecution of the Armenian Church, the human rights situation and, of course, the European Political Community and the EU-Armenia summits, but since we were talking about the Nagorno Karabakh issue and the genocide, as you know, a few days ago was the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, 111 years after 1915, and these days it is again becoming a topic of topical discussion. From this point of view, if we try to draw some parallels between the Artsakh issue and the Armenia-Azerbaijan process and, on the other hand, the Armenia-Turkey relations, can we say that there will be no real reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey without Turkey’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide? And secondly, Nikol Pashinyan said in his April 24 message:

“The greatest desire of the Armenian people has been fulfilled: we have a state and we have peace, and the state and peace are the guarantees that the Armenian Genocide will not happen again.” But if so, why did we allow genocide and ethnic cleansing in Nagorno Karabakh/Artsakh in 2023, having a statehood, the Republic of Armenia? 

John Eibner.Yes, of course, simply having a state does not guarantee human rights and respect for the Armenian population, but it should be the responsibility of the state as a mirror, as an instrument of the nation. And this is where there is a lot of confusion in Armenia. What the prime minister calls “the real Armenia”, that is, the state, can sign a peace treaty. They can do whatever they want. They can give up. And actually what we’re talking about in terms of a treaty is a capitulation treaty, fulfilling Azerbaijan’s conditions for surrender. But it is not the same as the reconciliation between the Armenian nation and Azerbaijan. Armenian: the state is not the Armenian nation.

The Armenian nation is bigger than the state, and the state should serve the interests of the Armenian nation. And this is not part of the ideology of the current prime minister and the so-called “real Armenia”. So we can see through the politics being conducted that there is an effort to separate the state from the institutions of the nation. On the one hand, there are diaspora institutions, and there is an effort to disconnect the state from influences in the diaspora that the state does not welcome. There is an effort to force the Catholicos of All Armenians to resign and make the church a servant of the state.

Aram Sargsyan. And by the way, they included this point or goal in the program of the ruling “Civil Pact” party for the June 7 parliamentary elections. That point is to remove the Catholicos of All Armenians. I mean, is that legal? How would you evaluate this from the point of view of the Constitution and the law?

John Eibner.Well, first of all, I’m not a constitutionalist, but it’s certainly not compatible with religious freedom and the autonomy of religious institutions. You can have it in Azerbaijan, and they have it in Azerbaijan, where, for example, the head of this Muslim-Islamic Department of the Caucasus is an “aparatchik”. He serves the state, the Azerbaijani state. Now, this certainly does not conform to Western norms of religious freedom, where religious institutions are autonomous. They should be able to manage themselves. And this becomes of crucial importance for the entirety of Armenian society, so that you avoid dictatorships. The church must have voice – an independent voice, and not just be a part of the state apparatus, a “transmission zone” for the state. It should be the conscience of the nation.

Aram Sargsyan. And as you mentioned during one of our interviews. “Religious freedom is more than just going to church and praying. Religious freedom means whatever faith you belong to, to be able to publicly express your religious point of view, to comment on public proceedings, and to be able to say: “What is happening in our society is incompatible with our faith and beliefs. It’s morally unfair.” Very well said.

John Eibner. Well, you said it again. That’s the crux of the matter. A lot of people, and again, the government would like to give a false impression of religious freedom and say, look, people can go to church, they can pray in church, but religious freedom is so much more than that. Religious freedom is not simply the right to hold a certain belief or to go to a certain building and pray in a certain way, but to live your life as a Christian, or to live your life as a Muslim, or to live your life without faith.

This is what freedom of faith and conscience really is, and it’s very sad to see this being degraded in Armenia today, and we have a return to the state, an attempt by the state to control religious institutions, as Azerbaijan does today, or Turkey does today, or the Soviets during communism, when they claimed to control the church. They exercised political control over the church, and this was a symptom of the lack of freedom in society.

Aram Sargsyan. Sorry, I think there was a term for that. “Laychism” if I’m not mistaken.

John Eibner. Yes, secularism, secularism or secularism. In a way, and there is also a lot of confusion about what secularism actually means. We want to have a secular state, but that does not mean that the society should be secular, that is, without religion. We want a free society where people are free to be religious, free to express their views, free to influence the government with their religious beliefs. But the state must be religiously neutral in the sense that it provides freedom for all religious beliefs, or freedom not to believe.

Aram Sargsyan. Now, who do you think ordered this item in the CP plan to remove the Catholicos of All Armenians? Where did the order come from?

John Eibner.I have not seen the documents, of course, but all the evidence that we can see today shows orders, instructions or, let’s say, conditions being set by Azerbaijan and Turkey, not for peace, but for the promise of peace. No conditions have been confirmed. We don’t know what peace will look like. We don’t know what the guarantees will be, but they promise peace if certain conditions are met. One of them is closing the Karabakh issue. One of them is the end of state support for the recognition of the Genocide. Traditionally, Armenian governments have encouraged the international community to recognize Genocide.

Aram Sargsyan. Azerbaijan also demands to change the Constitution.

John Eibner. Azerbaijan and Turkey together demand an end to it. And they also set a condition that the Catholicos should be removed and that the state should exercise political control over the church. And how do we know about it? We know this because there are statements made by Turkish and Azerbaijani spokesmen, leaders, and the media that identify the Catholicos as a “war monger,” as an “obstacle to peace,” and they openly claim that the church, led by its leader, is an “agent of war.”

And so the Prime Minister of Armenia takes this condition and repeats it, saying that the Catholicos and the Armenian Apostolic Church as it stands today is a threat to national security. This is the message coming from the Prime Minister of Armenia, but he seems to be a “transmission zone” for the conditions imposed by Azerbaijan and Turkey.

And then we also see that he is using Turkish and Azerbaijani anti-democratic means to see that those conditions are met. Such as the imprisonment of bishops and priests and the wiretapping of people and the various means of state coercion used to promote these policies. And the need for states to use coercive measures to achieve these political goals strongly suggests that these are goals that are not supported by the Armenian nation. If they were supported by the Armenian nation, there would be no need for it to resort to illegal means of coercion.

He should be able to manage these affairs through normal political means, according to the rule of law and according to normal fundamental human rights.

Aram Sargsyan. And by the way, according to sociological surveys, the Armenian Apostolic Church is the institution with the highest support and rating in Armenia, even higher than the Armenian Army: about 65 percent support the Armenian Church, and the Armenian Army has 59 percent. I mean, the Church is the most supported institution in Armenia.

John Eibner. Yes, there is no doubt that the Church has deep roots in Armenia. The nation respects it, and for its suppression, the Armenian Prime Minister must resort to coercive, illegal actions. Means. That’s the only way it can be done, and he does it. This is what is expected of him by his so-called peace partners, Turkey and Azerbaijan. Western governments are willing to go along with it because it solves a problem for them.

Aram Sargsyan. Regarding, of course, Western governments and supporters of Pashinyan’s government, one of the main topics of our conversation is the summit of the European Political Community and the first EU-Armenia summit, as you know, will take place on May 4 and 5 in Yerevan. What are these summits really about, politically and geopolitically? What do you think? I mean, putting aside the visible formal and ceremonial aspects of these events.

John Eibner. The European Union and the European Political Community come to achieve a geopolitical goal. It is very clear from all their statements that their goal is to try to push Russia out of the region, to end Russian influence and fill the gap, at least in part, with their own influence. This is abundantly clear from the various statements made by the European leadership.

Now, to achieve that objective tactically, they must be here at this moment to support the re-election of the Armenian Prime Minister, who, again, is carrying out the integration of Armenia not with Russia, but, of course, with Turkey and Azerbaijan. That is the local reality. And the European Union, and also the Americans who were here in the form of Vice President Vance’s visit not too many weeks ago, are here to support that process. So, they would much prefer Armenia to be politically and economically integrated into the neo-Ottoman, Turkish-led, pan-Turkic alliance than Armenia to be in the zone of Russian influence.

This is the geopolitical, so to speak, big picture they are here for. And they’re here to ensure that happens by coming to what amounts to a re-election campaign for the Armenian Prime Minister. JD Vance publicly defended him. I am not aware that European leaders have given such public support, but they are here to try to create the impression, and I think it is a false impression, but to create the impression that Armenia is on the verge of being part of Europe and will enjoy the economic benefits, in particular, that most Europeans enjoy.

Aram Sargsyan. As we know, US Vice President JD Vance also supported the Prime Minister of Hungary, who recently suffered a crushing defeat in the elections. Do you think Nikol Pashinyan will suffer the same fate?

John Eibner. Well, one can never be 100 percent sure, but I believe that every means, fair or unfair, will be used to ensure his victory. And the Armenian state has many tools at its disposal to help it. And, of course, they can be helped enormously by the European powers and the United States. It is no secret that the United States in particular has interfered and brokered elections throughout its history. It has even brought down many governments. It had leaders that were killed.

Aram Sargsyan. In South America, or Central America, or even other continents.

John Eibner. Yeah, I mean, it’s a well-known fact. It’s not a secret. It is well documented. Everyone is aware of it. So why should anyone think that if it is in the American or European interest to ensure that one particular candidate wins this election, they will not use anti-democratic means to achieve it? And the fact that they use democratic slogans does not mean that they will behave democratically. Armenians also know this.

They are well aware of the beautiful slogans that have been around for years. You hear about democratic socialism and people’s republics and things like that in Armenia, but the reality was quite different because the government felt the need to use coercive means to achieve its goals.

Aram Sargsyan. Mr. Eibner, what should European leaders, delegations and media representatives coming to Armenia know about the state of democracy and human rights in Armenia before the CIS summit and the EU-Armenia summit? I mean, will they, or at least some of them, who are truly committed to democratic freedoms, objectively approach the current situation in Armenia?

John Eibner. I am afraid that they know even more about the real situation in Armenia and the decline of democracy than you and I. They have intelligence agencies. They know what’s going on. And they are also participants, just like the Russians. I mean, the Russians are there. They know what’s going on. They have their means of influence. So what we see today is that Armenia is a battlefield of great powers, it has turned into a battlefield of the so-called “big game”.

That’s what the British called Central Asia in the 19th century. “Big chess board”. There’s a big game going on, and it’s happening now with Armenia. So you have a situation where everything in the world is changing. Russia can no longer truly claim Armenia as its sphere of influence and defend its interests here as it did in the past.

So, it is an open area for Turkish-Azerbaijani co-ownership, first of all, because they are immediate neighbors, but also the European Union and the Americans want to plant their flags here. It is very similar to the 19th century scramble for Africa.

Powers compete with each other to be here, and some powers want to be politically ascendant, particularly Turkey and Azerbaijan. Other powers are happy for the process to continue, as it simply means that the area will not be in Russia’s sphere of influence. And of course you can build a barrier between Russia and Iran.

so that A big geopolitical game is going on to establish influence in Armenia. And the only real interest that these powers, the Western powers, have is to try to prevent, say, Russia, Iran, and even China, although China is not such an active player, to make sure that the so-called adversaries have no space to operate and exert influence in Armenian territory. That’s really what it’s all about. The European political community is here to promote this.

When they come, they’re already doing it, they’re talking about building democratic resistance, while at the same time they’re interfering in the electoral process in a very overt way.

They talk about building democratic resistance while the prime minister they support is persecuting the church, harassing the media and carrying out a major democratic backsliding to make Armenia look more and more like a one-party authoritarian state. So they use language like “democratic resilience” and “fighting disinformation.”

Aram Sargsyan. Countering hybrid threats.

John Eibner. Exactly, but they are actually engaged in their own hybrid war. There is a hybrid war being waged by all these parties. Russia, the United States, Europe, Turkey and Azerbaijan, all of them are using their means, so far they have been non-lethal means, it is not kinetic warfare, but there is information warfare, psychological warfare, there is economic warfare. All this is now about governing Armenia and deciding the future of Armenia. And Western powers seem to believe that Armenia’s future belongs to the Turkish-Azerbaijani alliance.

Aram Sargsyan. And who do you think is actually waging a hybrid war against Armenia?

John Eibner. All the powers I mentioned. Turkey and Azerbaijan are waging a hybrid war against Armenia, sometimes they are waging a kinetic war, or, in other words, a deadly war.

At the moment no one is killed in that war, but they did it, they did it in Karabakh. These Karabakh wars are still unresolved. So they’ve used lethal warfare methods, and when they’re not waging lethal warfare, they’re waging hybrid warfare, using different methods: soft power, economic power, using psychological warfare, using information warfare to coerce Armenia. The Europeans, Americans and Russians are using whatever tools they have to push Armenia in the direction they want.

So Armenia is a battlefield today. At the moment, no one is being killed on that battlefield,  but the war is going on. And I wouldn’t want to say that the Russians are not waging a hybrid war. What I am saying is that everyone is handling hybrid warfare in their own way. And what I do know is that the Western powers have more sophisticated means of waging hybrid warfare than the Russians.

Aram Sargsyan. Armenia is a battlefield, you mean geopolitical conflicts?

John Eibner. Yes, it is a geopolitical battlefield. All these parties have a geopolitical interest. In fact, the economic benefit they have is marginal. It exists. But the main interest is geopolitical interest. The Americans have a geopolitical interest in creating a barrier between Russia and Iran: Also opening, of course, their “Zangezur Corridor”, “Trump Corridor”. The Europeans want to use the territory against their strategic adversary, which is Russia. We see this playing out in Ukraine. You see it being played in Moldova.

We are now seeing it played out in Turkey and Armenia. And then we see that Armenia’s immediate neighbors, Turkey and Azerbaijan, are demanding terms that would mean Armenia’s integration into this neo-Ottoman, pan-Turkic, geopolitical bloc, currently headed by Turkey. That is what is happening now with all these powers. Iran would also be in the mix, except that it is now fighting for its survival. Iran used to be an imperial power in Armenia, but it is “on the ropes” and doesn’t have the means to be a major player in this fight for Armenia.

Aram Sargsyan. And what if we look at these Armenia-EU issues, or these relations with the European Union, with Russia in the light of the recent meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Nikol Pashinyan, when Putin publicly raised many issues, including the issue related to the Eurasian Economic Union and the EU, and even the political processes taking place in Armenia. And what can the Armenian nation do to change the situation or prevent all these threats?

John Eibner.They are surrounded by threats. Each of these powers has certain leverage and can provoke and threaten Armenia. Of course, the biggest threat comes from Turkey and Azerbaijan, because they are immediate neighbors and they are already threatening war. Prime Minister Pashinyan admitted that the war may come in September. Well, where will that war come from? It is clear that from Turkey and Azerbaijan. If he doesn’t meet their terms, he says there could be war in September. And these other powers are pressuring and pushing each other, and it will take enormous diplomatic skills for Armenia to get out of this situation. to exit with sovereignty intact.

It’s not a simple question and I can be very critical of course. I can say that the Prime Minister of Armenia shouldn’t have done this and shouldn’t have done that, but I have some sympathy. Whoever is the Prime Minister of Armenia, if he loses the election and is succeeded, he will inherit an extremely difficult geopolitical situation. But I do not believe that the answer to this situation is to commit national suicide and give in politically and economically to the absorption of Armenia, which is actually a hostile Turkish-Azerbaijani alliance.

Aram Sargsyan. And as a conclusion, Mr. Aibner. Where do you think these processes and developments are leading Armenia, both domestically and regionally, certainly taking into account the situation around Iran, and how would you interpret the visit of Ukrainian President Zelensky to Armenia, which is expected by Nikol Pashinyan, as he announced the other day? 

John Eibner. Well, you’ve asked some great questions and I can’t predict the future. What I can say is that Armenia is sitting on a powder keg and it may explode: And such questions as, first of all, You mentioned President Zelensky’s visit. He is the head of a European state, a member of the European Political Community. So he has the right to be in such a meeting. The question is: what problem does the Prime Minister of Armenia want to solve in his presence? Is he using it to provoke Russia, or is he just hosting him out of courtesy as a head of state, as he should be? We will see in the coming days whether the Prime Minister believes that it is in the interests of the Armenian nation and the Armenian state to provoke Russia, if he believes that Turkey, Azerbaijan, the EU and the Western powers will save Armenia if there is an open conflict with Russia.

Aram Sargsyan. I mean, geopolitically, isn’t Zelensky’s visit too dangerous in your opinion?

John Eibner. Of course it’s dangerous. I mean, Armenia has no way to avoid danger. There are dangers from many sides. The immediate danger actually comes from Turkey and Azerbaijan. This is where there is a real threat of war tomorrow or in September. There can be a war, an invasion, a military operation against Armenia, which comes only from Azerbaijan and Turkey. But, of course, if Armenia becomes a base of anti-Russian activities, then there will be some reaction from Russia. And the first signs will come through some kind of economic coercion.

Aram Sargsyan. But don’t you think that this narrative and discussions about the so-called “new war” are somewhat artificially exaggerated by the authorities in order to scare people and manipulate it before the elections?

John Eibner. I don’t think it’s entirely artificial. Armenia is really under the threat of war. There is no doubt about it. there was a war in 2020. OK? There was a war. Three years ago, Nagorno Karabakh was attacked. So to say, oh, there is no threat of war, I think is a big mistake. There is a threat of war. The question is how to deal with that threat and whether the threat of war is being manipulated in a way that is not in the interest of the Armenian nation. That is the question. The threat of war is real. There is no doubt in my mind about that, but it is being manipulated in the interests of Turkey and Azerbaijan, and it is being manipulated in a way that could lead to the destruction of the Armenian state.

Aram Sargsyan. And would you like to say something more positive and encouraging as a conclusion?

John Eibner. Well, yes, hope is there is always hope. I mean, Armenians can talk about hope much better than I can. Armenians have gone through genocide, massacres, pogroms, ethnic and religious cleansing. We are facing a threat today, but the Armenian nation has survived. And there is always hope that somehow one can get out of trouble or survive a terrible tragedy. So there is tremendous hope. I’m not one to testify, but just look at the history of the nation and the history of its church, 1,700 years, and you’ve survived, you’ve survived.

Aram Sargsyan. Thank you, Mr. Eibner, for an interesting interview.

John Eibner. Thanks for hosting me.

—