Armenia emphasized regional connectivity gains at the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) Intergovernmental Council meeting in Shymkent on March 27.
Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan represented Armenia at the session, alongside senior officials from Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, with additional observer participation from Iran, Cuba and Uzbekistan.
The meeting focused on strengthening economic integration, including industrial cooperation, customs administration and digital systems, as well as monitoring macroeconomic trends across member states.
Grigoryan highlighted the lifting of transit restrictions by Azerbaijan as a significant development.
“The removal of transit barriers opens prospects for unlocking the region’s full potential and promoting trade growth,” he said.
He stressed that improving transport and logistics infrastructure in the South Caucasus could substantially boost foreign trade amid shifting global economic conditions.
Grigoryan also underscored the importance of coordinated monitoring of external economic activity to identify imbalances and protect domestic markets.
He pointed to ongoing cooperation in customs coordination, risk management systems and consumer protection, noting that joint efforts could enhance transparency and trust, particularly in the rapidly growing e-commerce sector.
—
Flyone Armenia to operate flights on Yerevan – Almaty – Yerevan route
Flyone Armenia will launch regular flights on the Yerevan – Almaty – Yerevan route starting from June 12, 2026, the company said in a statement.
Flights between Yerevan and Almaty will be operated from Zvartnots International Airport to Almaty International Airport twice a week — on Mondays and Fridays.
About FlyOne Armenia
FlyOne Armenia (www.flyone.am) is the leading air carrier of the Republic of Armenia, established in 2021. The airline operates flights to over twenty-three destinations across the CIS, Europe, and the Middle East — a number that continues to grow. Since the start of its operations, FlyOne Armenia has already carried more than three million passengers. The company’s modern fleet fully complies with the safety standards of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).
Published by Armenpress, original at
—
The framing trap in Armenia’s foreign policy debate
is an Adjunct Assistant Professor, Political Science and International Affairs program at American University of Armenia.
The problem with these questions is not simply tone. It is the structure. They do not merely seek clarification; they shape the answer space in advance. Before the opposition even responds, the wording already sorts possible answers into categories such as “responsible” and “irresponsible,” “peace-oriented” and “war-prone”. This is not a trivial rhetorical issue. I will argue why the framing of the five questions essentially narrows the space before any substantive debate can begin.
From an academic perspective, this matters because foreign policy is not only about how a state responds to external constraints. It is also about how elites define situations, frame options, and shape the meaning of policy choices before decisions are made. The framing of the question is therefore already part of the elite contestation of foreign policy choices, affecting how and what the public thinks. The framing determines which answers sound legitimate, which alternatives appear extreme, and which strategic visions are made to look unrealistic before they are even articulated.
The first problem in the proposed five questions is the use of false binaries. The peace agreement question is presented as if the opposition must either sign the August 2025 U.S.-brokered document or reopen negotiations from scratch. But serious foreign policymaking rarely works in such a binary way. Leave alone that the Washington document is only initialed, not signed, but there is also evidence that Azerbaijan itself has since come up with more preconditions – expecting Armenia to double down before Azerbaijan itself shoulders any obligations. In other words, state commitment to deals is conditioned by acceptance on reciprocity, sequencing, guarantees, or enforceability. The question does not merely simplify reality. It falls into the binary trap made by Azerbaijan.
The second problem is normalising Armenia’s weakness. The question about Constitutional amendment does not begin by asking whether Azerbaijan’s demand belongs within the legitimate space of negotiations at all, whether the current state of affairs can be reversed by good diplomacy, etc. Instead, it quietly normalizes that demand and asks only whether the opposition is prepared to comply or, in other words, is reckless enough to reject. This is a major framing problem. It shifts the burden from the demander to the respondent. Rejecting the premise is then made to look like rejecting peace itself. That is not a rational question and shall not be answered as is. It is narrative preloading.
The third problem is continuity bias, though here the issue should be framed more carefully. TRIPP remains, at this stage, a high-level political intention signaled by Armenia and the United States rather than an immutable legal architecture. Even signed memoranda or agreements can later be frozen or reshaped by external developments – it happens elsewhere. More importantly, a small state like Armenia does not realistically have the capacity to simply reverse such a framework once a firmer legal basis is in place, nor should public debate be reduced to a theatrical test of whether the opposition is willing to dump the US-Armenia collaboration – even if it’s yet a promise. That is not a strategy. The real question is whether the opposition can explain how TRIPP – and any other, broader connectivity project in the South Caucasus involving Armenia – should be structured so that Armenia secures the greatest possible sovereignty, security, and developmental benefit. That, rather than symbolic bravado, is what serious debate should address.
The fourth problem is the conflation of tone with achievement, especially on the Turkey and Azerbaijan tracks. Softened rhetoric is presented as evidence of progress, allowing tone to substitute for substance. But improved language is not a deliverable, and elites should not be lured into treating it as one. The IRI polling is telling: negative attitudes toward relations with Turkey fell from 89 percent in March 2023 to 69 percent now, likely due in part to sustained narrative-building in Armenia rather than to any meaningful shift in Turkey’s posture. Sporadic statements from Ankara suggest no strategic change toward Armenia. The shift, then, reflects rising optimism in Armenia more than changing realities in Turkey – and, in part, the failure of elite contestation to challenge that optimism. Once rhetoric is treated as an outcome, the real question – what Armenia is actually gaining, and what risks it may be normalizing – disappears behind the optics of diplomatic civility.
This is where role theory becomes especially relevant. One of its core insights is that national role conceptions are not fixed; they are contested among elites and between elites and society. As K. J. Holsti put it in 1970, they are “the policymakers’ own definitions of the general kinds of decisions, commitments, rules and actions suitable to their state, and of the functions, if any, their state should perform on a continuing basis in the international system or in subordinate regional systems. It is their ‘image’ of the appropriate orientations or functions of their state toward, or in, the external environment.” Foreign policy debates are thus often struggles over what kind of state a country imagines itself to be and what role it ought to play externally. Armenian elites, whether in government or in opposition, should therefore clarify and publicly contest their respective visions of Armenia’s national role. The government has made its view increasingly clear. What remains insufficiently articulated is the counter-elite’s version. The struggle, in other words, is also over Armenia’s national role itself.
A second lesson, this time from the study of public opinion in foreign policy, is equally important. Public opinion is not simply a spontaneous bottom-up _expression_ of what society thinks. It is often shaped from above through elite framing, media repetition, and agenda-setting. The effect of such framing lies not only in changing minds directly, but in shaping what the public sees as legitimate, realistic, and worthy of serious consideration. That is exactly what is at stake here. The five questions do not merely seek information from the opposition. They help train – not to exaggerate here though – the public to view some answers as inherently prudent and others as inherently dangerous. In that sense, they are partly shaping public opinion from above by narrowing the boundaries of acceptable foreign policy discourse.
This is why better questions matter. A rational question should not impose its preferred answer structure in advance. It should clarify alternatives, reveal trade-offs, and force political actors to state their criteria. It should not normalize concessions silently. It should not erase middle ground. And it should not confuse improved tone with strategic success.
A sharper and more rational reformulation would therefore look something like this:
1. How do you assess the initialed agreement with Azerbaijan? What is your imagined roadmap of how it should be implemented if and when signed into effect?
2. Azerbaijan has made, and continues to make, preconditions ahead of signing the so-called peace agreement. Where is the red line beyond which meeting such preconditions must stop?
3-4. What is your position on TRIPP and other connectivity projects involving Armenia: continuity, revision, or termination? By what national-interest criteria – above all sovereignty, security, and economic benefit – would guide your choice?
5. What’s your understanding of Armenia-Turkey relations now? (Armenia-Russia, Armenia-EU and others for that matter too).
These questions are better because they move the debate away from symbolic signaling and toward strategic judgment. They ask the opposition not merely whether it is “for” or “against” a given process, but how it understands the logic, limits, and terms of that process from the standpoint of Armenia’s interests. They force clearer thinking about implementation, red lines, connectivity, and Armenia’s broader external orientation. Most importantly, they invite the elite and the counter-elite to articulate their own foreign policy visions rather than merely be lured into the narrative traps managed from overseas. That is what meaningful democratic contestation should look like.
Ultimately, the central issue is not whether the opposition can produce satisfactory responses within an already established framework, but whether Armenia’s foreign policy debate can move beyond the assumptions embedded in that framework itself. Democracy is diminished when political choice is confined to rehearsing approved positions within inherited boundaries. It is strengthened only when those boundaries themselves are subjected to scrutiny. If debate is confined to pre-formulated binaries, then political pluralism risks being reduced to the mere ratification of externally and internally imposed limits. What is needed, therefore, is a more substantive inter-elite debate – one capable of clarifying Armenia’s strategic interests, articulating genuine alternatives, and restoring political agency and political imagination -to the center of foreign policy deliberation over Armenia’s place in the world.
Hovhannes Nikoghosyan is an Adjunct Assistant Professor, Political Science and International Affairs program at American University of Armenia.
The views expressed here are author’s own personal views and in no way reflect the views of the American University of Armenia, or views or positions of any institution or organization.
—
Asbarez: Zadik Zadikian to Represent Armenian Pavilion at 61st Annual Venice B
Zadik Zadikian
BY ALEJANDRO JASSAN
VENICE — The Republic of Armenia presents The Studio, a solo project by artist Zadik Zadikian, for the Pavilion of the Republic of Armenia at the 61st International Art Exhibition – La Biennale di Venezia. The project is co-curated by legendary art dealer Tony Shafrazi, whose decades-long relationship and close collaboration with Zadikian shape the conceptual framework of the Pavilion, alongside Boston-based curator and cultural strategist Tina Chakarian, who has played a central role in advancing Armenia’s presence at La Biennale di Venezia since 2015 as Commissioner and Development Director of the Armenian Pavilion. On view from May 9 through November 22, the Pavilion reimagines the exhibition space as a living studio—an active site of production, transformation, and renewal that unfolds over the full duration of La Biennale di Venezia.
This presentation marks the continuation of Shafrazi and Zadikian’s decades-long collaboration, which began in the late 1970s with Zadikian’s first solo exhibition in Tehran at Shafrazi’s then-new eponymous gallery, just weeks before the fall of Iran’s ruling shah and on the cusp of the profound political and social transformations that would follow. At that time, a young Zadikian observed laborers carefully stacking clay bricks to dry in the open air at a facility nearly 200 miles from Tehran. “I was completely taken by the way they were making sculptures without knowing what they were doing,” he recalls. Ever since, the brick has become a central material and conceptual anchor in his work, continuing to inform Zadikian’s sustained engagement with repetition, labor, and the transformation of basic forms into complex structures.
In Venice, Zadikian will operate a fully functioning studio, in which objects—principally plaster bricks of varying scales and pigments—are formed, cast, and assembled by the artist and his studio assistants over the course of the exhibition. Each composite form is built by stacking multiple individual bricks of different sizes that remain separate and movable, allowing the arrangement to change and develop over time. This emphasis on repetition and physical presence places the project in dialogue with early modernist and post-Minimalist sculpture, recalling the work of Richard Serra, Sol LeWitt, and Carl Andre, and reflecting a shared inquiry by both Zadikian and Shafrazi into form and the experience of space.
Aptly titled “The Studio”, the installation invites visitors to witness and engage directly with Zadikian’s process and materials, allowing the work to unfold in real time. By making production visible, the project challenges the often ritualized and private conventions of the artist’s studio, reframing it instead as a site of openness, exchange, and collective labor. In this way, “The Studio” recalls the legacy of Pop Art’s factories and ateliers—most notably Andy Warhol’s Factory—while emphasizing sustained, hands-on production over spectacle. As critic Carlo McCormack observes, “’The Studio’, for Zadikian, is workroom, factory, and laboratory at once—a locus of constant production, invention, and reinvention, a place of infinite possibility where art is not simply what is made; it is the study of its creation, and what we make of it.”
Furthermore, Chakarian’s longstanding engagement with Armenia’s cultural infrastructure—both within the Republic and across its global diaspora—inflects the Pavilion with a broader commitment to visibility, continuity, and international dialogue. Since 2015, as Commissioner and Development Director of the Armenian Pavilion at La Biennale di Venezia, she has played a central role in shaping Armenia’s sustained presence on this global stage, overseeing curatorial development, institutional partnerships, and strategic fundraising efforts. Her work bridges generations of artists working in Yerevan and abroad, positioning Armenian contemporary art within an expansive transnational discourse while honoring its distinct historical and cultural narratives.
“The Studio” will be located within the Arsenale Militare, a vast complex of shipyards and armories that for over 900 years served as the heart of Venetian naval power. Over the course of La Biennale di Venezia, hundreds of plaster bricks will be cast, stacked, disassembled, and reassembled within the Pavilion, allowing the installation to evolve continuously through ongoing production. Here, process is neither theatricalized nor concealed. As McCormack states, “the act of making is not staged, but neither is it hidden.”
The Venice presentation follows Zadikian’s recent inclusion in a major group exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum, “Solid Gold” (November 16, 2024–July 6, 2025), where his work “Path to Nine” (2024) took the form of a luminous wall composed of 999 gold leaf–covered bars, extending his long-standing engagement with modularity, material transformation, and symbolic value.
Zadik Zadikian (b. 1948, Erevan, Soviet Armenia) has spent over five decades creating works that challenge both the materials and ideologies of contemporary art. A daring escape from the Soviet Union in his youth marked the beginning of an extraordinary journey, from his training under Benjamino Bufano to his longstanding friendship with Richard Serra. Zadikian’s work, particularly his exploration of gilded forms, has established him as one of the leading sculptors in the realm of contemporary alchemy. His pieces, often crafted from gold leaf, suggest a transcendence of time and place, pushing boundaries while creating worlds that seem to belong to another realm entirely.
Learn more about the exhibition at the 2026 Armenian Pavilion website.
—
Armenian extradited to US over alleged role in RedLine infostealer scheme
—
Armenia’s EU visa liberalization process outpaces other countries, Deputy FM
Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Vahan Kostanyan told members of parliament on Monday that the visa liberalization process with the EU is proceeding at a fast pace for Armenia.
MP Armen Gevorgyan, representing the Armenia faction, asked the deputy foreign minister at the parliamentary committee on European integration affairs whether there is a timeframe for the completion of the process, given the broad public interest in the matter.
“It is currently impossible to specify an exact timeline for visa liberalization. We received the action plan last November, and I believe the first progress report will be published within the next one to two months,” Kostanyan said.
He added that the process is proceeding relatively quickly for Armenia compared to other countries. The deputy minister also emphasized that Armenia is currently the only country with which the European Union is conducting a visa liberalization dialogue.
Kostanyan also outlined the main areas in which Armenia needs to implement reforms: migration policy, protection of human rights, and the introduction of an integrated border control system.
Referring to the Schengen visa issuance process, he noted that in recent years the number of applications has increased significantly—by approximately 400 percent—which has also affected service delivery.
“In the past few months, we have seen at least a somewhat positive trend from various European embassies, which have increased their consular staff,” he said.
Kostanyan added that efforts are underway to extend visa issuance periods so that citizens are not forced to apply for a new visa frequently. According to him, some countries have already begun issuing visas with longer validity periods.
“The next area we are working on to simplify this process is the opening of consular sections within the embassies of European Union member states in Armenia. There are countries that have diplomatic representation in Armenia but do not provide consular services.
The latest development is that the Belgian embassy has decided to open a consular section, which will also help alleviate the existing workload to some extent,” Kostanyan concluded.
Published by Armenpress, original at
—
California Courier Online, March 23, 2026
After eight years of inept leadership, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan continues to damage Armenia’s interests, after giving away Artsakh to Azerbaijan.
I will now present the latest example of Pashinyan’s illegal actions.
Armenians were surprised to learn that the Prime Minister had ordered the dismissal of the Director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute, Dr. Edita Gzoyan, just because she had given the visiting Vice President of the United States JD Vance books on genocide and mass violence.
Here is how Pashinyan on March 12 justified his illegal demand for Dr. Gzoyan’s resignation: “When the Prime Minister says there is no Karabagh movement, what does it mean to present a foreign guest a book about the Artsakh issue? In this country, how many people can conduct foreign policy? The foreign policy of the Republic of Armenia is conducted by the government of the Republic of Armenia. And any state official who says something contrary to the foreign policy of Armenia should be dismissed. There is no issue there. Are we a state or a self-made group where we are experimenting with our creative potential? This is a state, beloved ones, with its clear governmental logic and state system. And there is absolutely no reason to make any excuses. The government decides foreign policy and I am the leader of the government and I decide, yes. … Yes, I asked her [Dr. Gzoyan] to submit her resignation. Yes I considered it an action contrary to the government’s foreign policy. I viewed it as a provocative act and asked her to submit her resignation. This is a state security issue. I say it again, when we announce that we must cease the Karabagh movement, there cannot be an official who can continue the Karabagh movement. There cannot be!”
By forcing Dr. Gzoyan to resign, Pashinyan committed several illegal acts:
1) He has no legal authority to decide who would be the director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute. The museum is managed by a foundation. Only the 15 members of the foundation’s Board of Trustees have the right to appoint or dismiss the director. Thus, Pashinyan illegally usurped the authority of the Board Trustees. In protest, several distinguished members of the Board of Trustees resigned, including the chairman, Dr. Raymond Kevorkian, a French-Armenian historian and a preeminent genocide scholar; Prof. Stephan Astourian, Executive Director of the Armenian Studies Program and Adjunct Assistant Professor of History at the University of California, Berkeley; Dr. Harutyun Marutyan, a leading researcher at the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia; and Dr. Hranush Kharatyan, a leading scientific researcher at the Institute of Archeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia.
2) Dr. Gzoyan did nothing wrong. As the Director of the Genocide Museum, she presented several books relevant to the Genocide museum’s mission to Vice President Vance. The Genocide Museum is an establishment that chronicles mass violence and genocide against Armenians in the past and the present.
3) After dismissing Dr. Gzoyan, Pashinyan committed a second illegal act. Without any authority, he appointed his former aide, Hrachya Tashchian, as acting director of AGMI. This is the prerogative of the AGMI foundation’s Board of Trustees.
4) Pashinyan sent the wrong message that academic research should be subordinated to politics. Anytime governmental policies change, scholars would be expected to amend their research to match the political leader’s whims! This is how Turkey and Azerbaijan distort the facts of the Armenian Genocide.
5) Pashinyan, who complained about Dr. Gzoyan giving a book about Artsakh to Vice President Vance, presented a book on Artsakh to Russia’s President Vladimir Putin in 2019 in Turkmenistan during the CIS summit. Shouldn’t he be dismissed for doing what Dr. Gzoyan did?
Trying to appease Erdogan and Aliyev, Pashinyan’s next order may be the shutdown of the Genocide Museum and Memorial.
Twenty five prominent Armenian scholars from around the world, including a Turkish scholar, signed a joint statement issued by the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR), condemning Pashinyan’s “troubling” action. They praised Dr. Gzoyan’s exceptional academic credentials and called on the Armenian government “to respect the independence of AGMI and ensure that Dr. Gzoyan is allowed to continue her work without political pressure or intervention. Protecting the [Genocide Museum] Institute’s autonomy and leadership is critical for preserving its credibility, safeguarding its scholarly mission and maintaining the trust of the international academic community. We believe that directorship of the AGMI should be based on the qualities of the individual as a scholar and administrator and not the political expedience of any particular administration.” They firmly demanded that “Dr. Gzoyan be reinstated immediately and allowed to continue the outstanding work she has been leading.”
With each passing day, Pashinyan continues to drag Armenia downhill — a critical issue to consider when voting in the June 7 parliamentary elections.
Residents stated that Kheshfejian’s home, located in the city center, appeared to have been targeted during a burglary attempt. Investigators believe the attackers broke into the residence with the intention of stealing valuables.
The crime has sparked widespread shock among residents of Aleppo, as the victim was well known in the area for her good reputation. She worked in the education sector and had previously served as the principal of a local school, earning respect for her role in teaching and guiding generations of students.
The incident comes amid broader concerns over security affecting Christian communities across various Syrian provinces, where many cases of violence and theft remain unresolved. Christians in Syria have endured numerous violations during the years of conflict, including killings, abductions, robberies, displacement, church bombings, and the desecration of religious sites.
In a separate incident, Dr. Salwa Saloum was recently the victim of an armed robbery when a Range Rover carrying two men stopped in front of her clinic. One of the assailants reportedly pointed a gun at her head and threatened her while the other stole approximately 17 million Syrian Pounds from inside the clinic before fleeing the scene.
The Wadi al-Masihiyeen (Valley of Christians) was also shaken last October when masked gunmen attacked a group of Christian youths, resulting in the deaths of Wissam George Mansour and his cousin Shafiq Rafiq Mansour, while several others were injured.
- Colorado Boulevard
Every March 15, Armenian communities across the United States, Europe, Latin America, and the
Middle East gather for ceremonies, lectures, monument unveilings, and memorial services honoring one man and one mission: Soghomon Tehlirian and Operation Nemesis.
On that day in 1921, 25-year-old Armenian survivor Tehlirian walked up behind Talaat Pasha, the chief architect of the 1915 Armenian Genocide, in broad daylight on a Berlin street and shot him in the head. The act was not random vengeance. It was the most visible strike in a secret Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) campaign called Operation Nemesis, launched because the world had failed to deliver justice. For the Armenian diaspora, March 15 is “Avenger’s Day,” an annual remembrance established by the ARF in 1974. It is more than nostalgia; it is a living affirmation of identity, moral resolve, and the refusal to let genocide go unpunished.
The Shadow of Genocide
The date carries profound weight because of its history. Between 1915 and 1923, the Ottoman Young Turk government orchestrated the systematic deportation, massacre, and death marches of roughly 1.5 million Armenians. After World War I, promises of tribunals faded. Key perpetrators, Talaat Pasha, Enver Pasha, Cemal Pasha, escaped into exile, living freely while survivors rebuilt shattered lives in foreign lands. International justice had failed.
In response, the ARF’s 1919 congress in Yerevan authorized Operation Nemesis: a secret mission to deliver accountability where none existed. Named for the goddess of retribution, it targeted those most responsible. Between 1920 and 1922, the group carried out at least seven successful assassinations across Europe and the Middle East.
Tehlirian: Survivor and Avenger
At his two-day trial in June, the courtroom became an unofficial tribunal on the Genocide. Survivor testimony, expert witnesses, and Tehlirian’s calm statement, “I have killed a man, but I am not a murderer,” filled the German press. The jury acquitted him in less than an hour. The verdict sent shock waves: a European court had implicitly recognized the Armenian Genocide as a mitigating circumstance for an act that would otherwise have been simple murder.
Diaspora Memory and Identity
For the diaspora, this sequence, genocide, impunity, targeted justice, public vindication, condenses the 20th-century Armenian experience into one dramatic episode. Most diaspora families trace their presence in California, France, Argentina, or Lebanon directly to genocide survivors who arrived as refugees. Annual April 24 commemorations remember the victims; March 15 remembers the response. It affirms that Armenians were not passive martyrs but agents who reclaimed agency when governments abandoned them. The act restored dignity and pride.
This truth resonates in my own family. My mother, Serpouhi, survived the horrors, and I grew up hearing fragments of the Dickranian family story—not as dramatic tales, but as quiet, enduring truths. Eventually, they found safety in America and rebuilt a life of quiet strength. Those stories shaped me—not with anger, but with a deep responsibility to remember and honor those who ensured our survival.
In Fresno, California, at the Masis Ararat Armenian Cemetery, a monument honors Tehlirian: an obelisk topped with a gold-plated eagle slaying a snake, symbolizing Armenian justice striking down Talaat Pasha, the “snake” as the chief architect of the Genocide. Erected in 1969, it remains a powerful pilgrimage site, drawing visitors who lay flowers and reflect on the enduring legacy of retribution and resilience.
Lessons for Today
A historic Armenian artifact and a graphic artwork by Armenian-American painter Arshile Gorky—acquired by the Armenian government as part of its efforts to locate and retrieve Armenian cultural heritage artifacts that have appeared in private collections or auctions around the world—will soon be put on display at the History Museum of Armenia and the National Gallery of Armenia in Yerevan.
The Armenian government allocated more than 300 million drams last year alone for the retrieval of various artifacts.
“Soon, our public will be able to see the wooden door panel of a medieval Armenian church acquired by the state, as well as a graphic artwork by Arshile Gorky, which will be displayed in the National Gallery and the History Museum,” Minister of Education, Science, Culture, and Sport Zhanna Andreasyan said at a parliamentary committee meeting on her ministry’s 2025 performance report.
The monumental Armenian church door panel was made in 1188 and will be displayed at the History Museum of Armenia.
The artifact appeared in international circulation in the 1980s and was later found in a private collection in New York. Earlier in December 2025, the Sam Fogg London art dealership website featured a monumental door panel carved for the Haghpat Monastery in Armenia, dated to 1188.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday voted to reappoint two Armenian-American community leaders with long-standing involvement in the Armenian National Committee of America and its Western Region affiliate.
Jack Hadjinian was reappointed to the Commission on Alcohol and Other Drugs by L.A. serving County Supervisor Hilda Solis’ District 1.
Vasken Yardemian was appointed to another term to the L.A. County Economy and Efficiency Commission. He will represent Supervisor Kathryn Barger’s District 5.
Finland tops the list, followed by Ireland, Denmark, Costa Rica, and Sweden.
Among Armenia’s neighbors Georgia ranked 91st, Turkey (94th), Iran (97th) and Azerbaijan (102nd).
Rankings are based on the single life evaluation question called the Cantril Ladder.
commentary,
—
ANI: The One Thousand and One Afterlives of Medieval Armenian Capital
|
|
|
|
Newly appointed Ambassador of Laos presents credentials to Armenian President
The newly appointed Ambassador of Laos to Armenia, Siphandone Oybouabouddy, has presented his credentials to President Vahagn Khachaturyan.
Vahagn Khachaturyan congratulated the ambassador on assuming office and wished him success in his work toward developing relations between the two countries, the President’s Office said in a press release.
The President expressed hope that cooperation between Armenia and Laos will further expand, encompassing various areas of mutual interest. Ambassador Oybouabouddy thanked him for the reception and noted that, through his work, he would make every effort to strengthen and develop bilateral relations.
During the meeting, the parties discussed opportunities to expand cooperation in the political, economic, educational, and high-tech sectors.
They emphasized the importance of advancing parliamentary diplomacy, considering it a key component of bilateral relations.
The role of official mutual visits was also highlighted as an effective means of strengthening cooperation and exploring new directions.
The parties noted that close cooperation on international platforms could have a positive impact by promoting shared agendas.
The conversation also touched upon COP17—the upcoming 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, to be held in Armenia this year—as well as the Yerevan Dialogue international forum, underscoring their importance as platforms for deepening cooperation and strengthening relations.
Published by Armenpress, original at
—
Mojtaba Khamenei escaped death by seconds – The Telegraph
Iran’s new supreme leader survived US and Israeli air strikes because he stepped outside for a walk in his garden minutes before his home was hit by missiles, according to a leaked audio obtained by The Telegraph.
The recording reveals that Mojtaba Khamenei was targeted in the same attack that killed his father Ali Khamenei and other members of the Iranian leadership, and his family. But he had gone outside “to do something” moments before Israeli Blue Sparrow ballistic missiles hit his residence at 9.32am local time on Feb 28.
The recording is attributed to Mazaher Hosseini, head of protocol for Ali Khamenei’s office, who delivers a statement to senior clerics and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and provides the first detailed account of what happened inside the supreme leader’s compound when it came under fire.
The Telegraph said the recording was leaked to it and has since been independently verified.
Hosseini revealed that Mojtaba Khamenei suffered an injury to his leg in the strikes, while his wife and son were killed instantly and his brother-in-law was decapitated, according to the report.
The body of Mohammad Shirazi, chief of Khamenei’s military bureau, was also “blown to pieces”. Only “a few kilos of flesh” could be used to identify him, Hosseini told the meeting, held on March 12 in Tehran’s Qolhak neighbourhood.
On Feb 28, Ali Khamenei and senior security officials were gathered for a meeting when missiles hit the compound. Mohammad Pakpour, the IRGC chief, Aziz Nasirzadeh, Iran’s defence minister, and Ali Khamenei were among those killed.
Mr Hosseini said in the recording: “God’s will was that Mojtaba had to go out to the yard to do something and then return.
“He was outside and was heading upstairs when they struck the building with a missile. His wife, Ms Haddad, was martyred instantly.”
Mr Hosseini said Mojtaba sustained only “a minor injury to his leg”.
According to Mr Hosseini, the strikes targeted multiple locations within the office complex simultaneously and appeared aimed at wiping out the entire Khamenei family.
Mojtaba was selected as supreme leader on March 9.
He has not been seen since the start of the war or since his election. His only message to his people came in the form of a written message read on state television.
Published by Armenpress, original at
—