April 13, 2026
Yerkhapah Volunteer Union has received another grant from the Ministry of Defense, which has become a tradition since 2022.
There is publicity about the 271 million 890,000 AMD grant contract in the electronic procurement system, but the actual contract, named “blank”, is empty.
In any case, let’s remind that in previous years this allocation was justified by providing the full scope of activities of the NGO “Union of Earth Guard Volunteers”.
“2020 During the war, the NGO “Union of Patriotic Volunteers” had a significant participation, having a large number of members of the organization (74 killed) and 114 wounded. In the post-war period, more than 4,000 EMU volunteers performed combat duty in various combat positions within the RA Ministry of Defense.
Taking into account that the “Union of Earth Guard Volunteers” NGO cooperates with the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia, assists in the implementation of the tasks set before it, educates and trains future soldiers for the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia, the adoption of the project will create an opportunity to ensure the full implementation of the activities of the NGO in 2025,” it was stated in the justification of the government’s decision last year.
Let’s add that until the previous one: the year 2025, Received from Ministry of Defense grant amount it was stable 234 million 638,000 drams, this year there was an addition.
This year, of course, also differs due to the fact that YCU President Sasun Mikayelyan is showing activity again after certain pauses, moreover, he is already participating in the unannounced campaign within the framework of the “happy bus”.
—
This man himself will bring war on the people. even stuck to his chest c
April 13, 2026
Nikol Pashinyan, together with his teammates, continues to go to marzes by “campaign” bus on weekends, to present the small map he made to the citizens, saying: “Taste it, take it, this is the real map of Armenia.”
On Saturday, Nikol Pashinyan was in Lori Marz, one of the citizens asked him a very direct question: “Is peace conditioned by your staying in power, because you say that if CP does not form power on June 7, then there will be a war?”
The citizen even mocked. “I pray every day that nothing happens to you suddenly, that we don’t have peace.”
Freedom Fighter, “Van” operation commander Vazgen Sislyani By definition, Nikol Pashinyan is very directly threatening and scaring people with his statement.
“That man announced that he should hold a military parade on May 28, so won’t this lead to war? According to his words, statements, and data, such things lead to war. He says, “If I’m not in power, there will be a war”, he’s just scaring the people, so does peace in this country depend on him, that is, he should stay in power for life so that there won’t be a war? He also says to the pensioner: “If I’m not there, you won’t get a pension.” What does this mean? It’s very simple: it’s a way of suppressing and intimidating the citizen. These steps taken by this person are unacceptable to me.” 168.amVazgen Sislyan said in a conversation with
According to our interlocutor, all the steps, statements and actions of the current RA authorities are already a war hanging on Armenia’s head.
“That war will be brought to the head of the people, that’s why I hope that it will not be elected who will be elected, this is already a different issue. I hope that he will not be elected, that’s enough. There is a law in the world, isn’t there? When a president is elected, they are elected twice, he already goes to the fourth, establishes a dictatorship, and let him not say that democracy reigns in Armenia.
Let me add one more thing: for me, the parliamentary system in Armenia is unacceptable, it should be presidential and be elected at least 2 times by law,” stressed Vazgen Sislyan.
As for Nikol Pashinyan’s statements about the war and the question whether the law enforcement officers have anything to do here, because, as he said, he is trying to oppress the people before the elections, Vazgen Sislyan answered that, unfortunately, the law enforcement officers are not independent.
“He said himself, didn’t he, that there is such a judge who doesn’t do what he says, that is, our justice is not independent to do something or put the facts in front of him, the same applies to the Constitutional Court as well. The Armenian nation voted for independence, wanted to be independent, but this man has come and decided to withdraw the Declaration of Independence, he is going against the people’s choice. That person is deceiving me and citizens like me, we are citizens of this country, right?
I repeat, I have great hope that this person will not be elected. These authorities are completely on the opposite side of the idea I fought for, how can I be on their side? I can be on their side if they work for this country, our state, but that is not the case. Even the map stuck to his chest is against us: there is no Armenian of the Diaspora, of the world, there is no Western Armenia. Azerbaijani soldiers are sitting in our territories, why is it not taking them out?
In the end, this person does not lead the country, he just deceives people, we hope he will not be elected,” emphasized Vazgen Sislyan.
—
Trump’s Iranian “puddle” is getting tangled. what to expect in the near future?
April 13, 2026
Recently, the Iran-US negotiations, arranged with the mediation of Pakistan, in the capital Islamabad, essentially failed. Tehran’s chief negotiator, speaker of the country’s parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf stated that Washington failed to win Tehran’s trust. In X’s post, Ghalibaf said that his negotiating team presented “forward-looking” initiatives during discussions in Pakistan, but the United States failed to gain the confidence of the Iranian delegation.
“My colleagues in the Iranian delegation presented constructive initiatives, but at the end of this round of negotiations, the opposite side was not able to win the trust of the Iranian delegation,” the Iranian official wrote, continuing that the US understood their logic and principles, and it is time to decide whether it is able to win the trust of Iran or not.
US Vice President JD Vance also announced that after 21 hours of negotiations in Islamabad, the USA and Iran could not reach an agreement on ending the war. “We had a number of meaningful discussions with the Iranians, this is the good news. The bad news is that we didn’t reach an agreement, and I think that’s much worse news for Iran than it is for the United States of America,” JD Vance said. “We simply could not reach a situation where the Iranians would accept our terms,” the US vice president noted, adding that they are leaving Pakistan with a very simple offer, which is their “final and best offer.” “Let’s see if the Iranians will accept it,” he said.
Foreign Minister of Iran Abbas Araghchi for his part, referring to the negotiations, he stated that Tehran participated in the negotiations with the USA “in good faith”, but encountered “maximalism”.
“During 47 years of intensive negotiations at the highest level, Iran communicated in good faith with the United States to end the war. However, when we were just inches away from the Islamabad MoU, we encountered maximalism, shifting targets and a blockade,” Araghchi wrote on his X page, adding that lessons have not been learned, goodwill begets goodwill, enmity begets enmity.
After failed negotiations US President Trump renewed his threats, stating that the United States Navy would blockade the Strait of Hormuz, blocking the path of all ships attempting to enter or exit.
In particular, President Trump wrote on his Truth Social social network: “And so. the meeting went well, agreement was reached on most of the points, except for the only point that was really important, the nuclear issue. From now on, the United States Navy, the best in the world, will begin the process of blocking all ships trying to enter or leave the Strait of Hormuz. He noted that at some point “they will reach the state of ‘everyone is allowed to enter, everyone is allowed to leave’, but Iran has not allowed this to become a reality, simply declaring: “There may be a mine somewhere.” Trump reaffirmed that the US will start an operation to clear Hormuz of mines. “If an Iranian hits us or a ship there for peaceful purposes, he will end up in hell,” he said.US Central Command announced that the blockade would be implemented against ships of all countries entering or leaving Iranian ports and coastal areas in the Arabian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. The command added that it will not impede the passage of ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz if they are going to or coming from non-Iranian ports.
And? British Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that Great Britain will not get involved in the war with Iran and will not participate in the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. “We do not support the blockade,” he said, adding that reopening the strait is vital. “In my opinion, it is vital that we open the strait and that it is fully open, and that is what we have focused all our efforts on in recent days and will continue to do,” said Starmer, in whose speech there were disagreements about the decisions made by Washington. By the way, the visit of Charles III is expected at the end of this month, on whose agenda experts also predicted the discussion of this issue.
Russian analyst Viktor Nadein-Raevsky 168.amtold that a new stage of decisions and political challenge is ripe for Trump. According to him, with the failure of these negotiations, Trump appeared under three conflicting pressures at the same time: internal, external and temporal. Obviously, in his opinion, Trump cannot easily go to either a complete deal or a complete escalation.
“All this complicates Iran’s tough positioning. At this stage, Iran acts from a more confident position: active use of regional levers, refusal of agreements that are incomplete and do not inspire confidence. Tehran is trying to change the rules of the game, forcing the USA to negotiate on terms that are not its traditional. Although the negotiations were proceeding, Israel’s actions created a “parallel front” that further complicated the success of the negotiations. For Trump, the situation is getting complicated because the negotiation levers are decreasing, Iran is not isolated, the risks are increasing. there are many multi-vector economic consequences, there are disagreements among the allies, and the US’s similar positioning towards Iran does not have many supporters in the world.
Another important factor is that the geopolitical background has changed and the US pressure mechanisms are not effective in a multipolar world. Trump’s “puddle” is complicated because he is trying at the same time to maintain tough rhetoric, avoid a long-term, large-scale war, record and announce a diplomatic victory, but these seem to be incompatible. Therefore, the situation will continue with a different rhythm of escalation, negotiation attempts, change of mediators, Iran’s tough positioning will continue as long as it feels that it is not the weak side in this confrontation,” said Victor Nadein-Raevsky.
He believes that this is an extremely important and remarkable development for the South Caucasus. “Such unpredictable geopolitical developments involving two key states for the South Caucasus, one a regional power, the other a superpower, the confrontation between which sometimes develops unexpectedly, breaking universal expectations, should cause the right consequences. “And one of the main consequences is that in a multipolar world, it is necessary to act according to the current multipolar model of the world structure, not the previous one. This is a relevant consequence for Armenia as well. A superpower can have a goal and fail, that’s normal, and that’s what the Trump administration is facing,” said Viktor Nadein-Raevsky.
—
What should Zohrab Mnatsak write an article about or what questions should Zohrab Mnatsak answer?
April 13, 2026
On April 1, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of RA Zohrab Mnatsakanyan published an article with the caption “Armenia’s “transit moment” is much more than 43 kilometers”. evnreport.com, in which the observations, particularly related to TRIPP, we we have referred.
Of course, after the 44-day war, the former foreign minister wrote other articles on other topics published by including, in 2022, under the title “Aggressive implementation of the concept of “Disengagement for the sake of salvation is a necessity”, which Nikol Pashinyan also talked about during the war, but in the post-war period he made exactly the opposite claims.
We will detail the revolution or evolution of his views on the status of Artsakh in 2023. submitted when the Prague meeting had already taken place and Pashinyan recognized Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan.
And although we have referred to the former Minister of Foreign Affairs Zohrab Mnatsakanyan on another occasion, some of the incidents recorded during his tenure episodes in any case, taking into account the former head of the foreign ministry’s love of writing articles, as well as the fact that he served during the 44-day war of 2020, so he has his share of responsibility for the start of the war and its defeat, we consider it necessary to suggest to him what Zohrab Mnatsakanyan should write an article about today, what range of issues he should cover.
Let’s remind that in 2018 After the change of power, he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia appointed Zohrab Mnatsakanyan, then in 2019 he was reassigned and continue to hold office until 2020 November 16.
In other words, he held office in the pre-war, war period and in 2020. during the signing of the tripartite statement on November 9-10, which was essentially a ceasefire document, but which contained includes: item 9 on the unblocking of communications, referring to which, in fact, Azerbaijan and Armenia came and reached TRIPP, and about which Zohrab Mnatsakanyan recently wrote an article, it is a different matter that an attempt was made to push the Russian Federation out of this whole story.
But first of all, Zohrab Mnatsakanyan should answer the questions related to some episodes of negotiations in the pre-war period.
First, Nikol Pashinyan announced after the war. “Since 1994, that is, after the cease-fire, the negotiation process has been about returning Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan.” Aliyev, in turn, already during the war, at the beginning of October, as follows was the declassification did
“The ceasefire regime was maintained and restored for 2 years at the request of the RA Prime Minister. He asked me that the internal situation is difficult, I am under pressure from all sides, give me time and I will solve the issue. He said, “I have come with new ideas, I have erased everything that happened in the past, give me a chance and time.” I replied: OK. And what happened? After a year, he announced: “Karabakh is Armenia, and that’s it.” Well, let him say now: “Karabakh is Armenia, and that’s it.”
Now, what did Armenia negotiate before the 2020 war, were some preliminary agreements with Azerbaijan violated, what was the negotiation package in 2019, which the political opposition claims is still kept secret? Moreover, in 2019, the military and political leadership of RA made bold and “provocative” statements.
Did these affect the negotiations, if there was such a process, and what should be understood in the footnote of such statements of the RA leadership at that time, for example, what was the point of “Artsakh is Armenia, and that’s it” when Baku did not agree that Artsakh should return to the negotiation table? it was certainly not a mere display of romantic patriotism, as Pashinyan later tried to present.
Was the promise to return Artsakh to the negotiation table after the change of power a cold calculation, and what kind of cold calculation, had we reached the finish line in the negotiation process, and should Artsakh have made its final speech, or should Artsakh have been responsible for the outcome of the negotiations, and it doesn’t matter that the then president of Artsakh, Arayik Harutyunyan, was doing everything, as was Nikol Pashinyan. get it right when he decided to follow the path of secondary status of Artsakh, putting security first, which, although at first sight, did not contain danger. But we warned back then that it opens the door to the deployment of peacekeepers.
Second, Zohrab Mnatsakanyan should publicly state whether the July 2020 battles changed the negotiation situation.
It should be noted that last year the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Defense and Security of the National Assembly Andranik Kocharyan referred to the July battles and insist that they affected the negotiation process. Moreover, although Kocharyan pointed the “accusatory arrow” at the military, he also made an indirect reference to Zohrab Mnatsakanyan’s interrogation in the investigative commission.
“After the July events in Tavush, we found ourselves in a completely different reality. We asked Zohrab Mnatsakanyan as the Minister of Foreign Affairs: when did you feel that something changed, in the end, there were active negotiation processes? July cases somewhere need is more deep be studied – how? happened our participation that kind of nonsense to the process.” In September 2025 Factor.amAndranik Kocharyan said in an interview with
It should be noted that the former Minister of Foreign Affairs Zohrab Mnatsakanyan was invited to the NA investigative commission investigating the circumstances of the 44-day war at the beginning of April 2023, after Onik Gasparyan and Davit Tonoyan, before Nikol Pashinyan.
Andranik Kocharyan assured in the conversation with the journalists that they received the answers to the questions of interest to the committee from the former Minister of Foreign Affairs.
“Mr. Mnatsakanyan presented in detail, in the first stage, during his tenure, what was the negotiation process before that, since May 18, when he became the minister, what processes were developed, he presented all the realities in several stages, including processes that, as well as the negotiation process and the atmosphere of trust with the other side, should be built,” Kocharyan elaborated.
What concrete and substantive questions were asked and what Zohrab Mnatsakanyan, who served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs during the 44-day period, answered them, including the impact of the July battles, why not whether Turkey’s direct participation in the war was considered probable or not, is not known, because the authorities keep the entire report secret.
Instead, after the July battles, on July 31, 2020, he gave an interview “Shant” to the TV company, during which he particularly emphasized.
“Turkey’s positioning in the light of these developments expresses its destructive and destabilizing policies in this region, which we have seen and continue to see in the Eastern Mediterranean, North Africa, and the Middle East. And what is happening after July 12 is an attempt, a goal, to export that destabilizing policy to the South Caucasus, which we are resisting with all possible means.”
In other words, Zohrab Mnatsakanyan confirms here that at least after the July battles, it was clear that Turkey would take a direct part in a possible war. Nikol Pashinyan understood this very well, it is a different matter that he tried through his family newspaper one day before the 44-day war. to deny this obvious truth, noting that the opponents of the authorities are “preparing a propaganda ground to involve Turkey directly in a new war”.
And it is nothing that Nikol Pashinyan himself, on his Facebook page of November 29, 2020 in the post He made the opposite confession. “At any stage, including during the Turkish-Azerbaijani military exercises, I would go and say to the Turks: let’s resolve the issue without war, they would have said: give a specific schedule when I hand over the territories. If I signed, they would say, “Nikol traitor”, if I didn’t sign, the war would start.”
It should be noted that Davit Tonoyan, the former Minister of Defense of the Republic of Armenia, during his interrogation in the Investigative Commissionhad said that after the July battles, in the period preceding the war, in the context of the Turkish-Azerbaijani military exercises in Nakhichevan, “the redeployment of Turkish F16s to the city of Ganja (Gandzak) suggested that it was not all for the purpose of training.”
Moreover, Hulusi Akar was the Minister of Defense of Turkey at that timethreatened to punish Armenia, and it was even intended to implement the September 2020 war plan in Artsakh in the summer of the same year. As for the fact that Armenia’s opponent is no longer only Azerbaijan, but Turkey, the former head of the General Staff of the Armenian Armed Forces Onik Gasparyan warned before the July battles.
Now, when Zohrab Mnatsakanyan says in the aforementioned interview after the July battles that they tried to resist the Turkish threat by all possible means, what does that mean, what countries did they use to try to counter it, and why did that “resistance” fail?
For example, immediately after the July battles, the military leadership with the ambassadors of NATO member states meetings had in order to neutralize the applicability of F16. What steps has the structure headed by Zohrab Mnatsakanyan and himself taken in this regard?
It is only known that after the July battles, Armenia had suspended The participation of Turkish representatives in the planned inspection visits in the territory of the Republic of Armenia within the framework of the SDF treaty and the Vienna document.
Thirdly, the former head of the 2023 General Staff of the RA Armed Forces, Onik Gasparyan, announced that that before the war, Pashinyan was suggested to take political and diplomatic measures to “prevent the war or, at least, to create favorable conditions for the use of the RA Armed Forces, in particular, to instruct the RA Ministry of Foreign Affairs to develop a program of measures aimed at dramatically improving relations with the member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (especially with Russia), and providing friendly relations with the other states of the region (Iran and Georgia).” Did Zohrab Mnatsakanyan receive such an assignment, and what was done, because we have specific problems during the war? had, which Onik Gasparyan also referred to in the same statement.
«Due to weak diplomatic work and being under siege, uninterrupted and regular provision of the necessary amount of rockets and ammunition to the armed forces was not organized effectively, as a result of which it did not give a full opportunity to compensate the expenditure of rockets and ammunition, as well as the losses of weapons and military equipment.“, said Onik Gasparyan, who held the position of head of the General Staff during the war.
Can Zohrab Mnatsakanyan answer these clear and targeted accusations?
Or, during the war, he offered Nikol Pashinyan to stop the war, did he agree with the former head of the General Staff? of assessment with the fact that the later the war is stopped, we will have less favorable conditions for the negotiation process, and in general, how did the foreign ministry cooperate with the military leadership during the war?
Or what role did he play in the development of the tripartite statement of November 9-10, 2020? The list of questions to be answered by the former Minister of Foreign Affairs can be considered long, but let’s limit ourselves to this. One thing is clear: Zohrab Mnatsakanyan has a serious responsibility in his position for not preventing the war and then ending it, regardless of whether he accepts it or not…
—
Azerbaijan can get control of TRIPP through US funds
April 13, 2026
168TVof “Trigger” the guest of the program Caucasian scientist Karen Igityan is:
During the program, key international and regional topics were discussed in detail, including Iran’s war with the United States of America, the possible blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and the failure of negotiations between Washington and Tehran, as well as the Hungarian elections and Viktor Orbán’s defeat, their potential impact on the course of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the future relations between the European Union and the United States.
In addition, the conversation was related to the possibility of a conflict between the EU and Russia, the role and influence of the USA in the Middle East and the South Caucasus, the prospects of the transfer of Armenian railways to Azerbaijan, the future of the TRIPP road and the upcoming elections in Armenia.
Hayk Derzyan
—
California Courier Online, April 13, 2026
After the June 2021 parliamentary elections, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s Civil Contract (CC) political party made dozens of promises to achieve within five years, such as defending Artsakh and the rights of its people, etc. However, those promises were either unfulfilled or contradicted by subsequent government actions.
The leaders of CC appointed themselves to top government positions despite lacking qualifications, and enriched themselves through exclusive state contracts, high salaries, and millions of dollars in undeserved bonuses. The same party is now trying to fool the public again for a second time.
On April 3, 2026, CC released its campaign plan for the parliamentary elections of June 7, 2026, and listed 100 key actions to be accomplished between 2026 and 2031.
I will present two of these promised actions:
Point 10, titled “Value-based society,” outlines the Civil Contract’s plans “to reform” the Armenian Apostolic Church. The CC claims that “the activities of the de facto leadership of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church [poses] a problem of spiritual security, since it has created an opportunity for external forces to try to turn the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church into a base for a hybrid struggle against the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Armenia.” This baseless statement is intended to deflect similar accusations against Pashinyan. If any citizen, layman or clergyman, is a foreign agent, the government has an obligation to arrest and charge that person. This is a defamatory claim, similar to those made against Pashinyan.
Point 10 goes on to detail specific steps that violate the Armenian constitution’s principle of separation of Church and State. Below is CC’s plan:
“a) Removal of the de facto head of the Armenian Apostolic Church (retirement)”;
“b) Election of the Catholicosate Vicar in accordance with established procedure”;
“c) Adoption of the Statute of the Armenian Apostolic Holy Church. The Statute should establish mechanisms for maintaining the established principles, financial transparency, and good conduct of the clergy”;
“d) Election of the Catholicos of All Armenians in accordance with established procedure”.
Political parties have no right to decide any of the above four steps. The constitution forbids the government from meddling in the internal affairs of the Church, which has long-established procedures. The government can barely run the country; yet it seeks to manage the Church as well.
Furthermore, CC seeks to offer the clergy personal benefits. Point 10 states: “The Parliamentary majority formed by the Civil Contract party and the government will undertake the inclusion of clergy in the state system of social guarantees.” I am not opposed to the clergy receiving benefits such as health insurance and social security, like all other Armenian citizens; however, it is problematic to link these benefits with the government’s interference with the Church’s hierarchy.
Strangely, Point 10 reiterates that “religious organizations are separate from the state,” yet the government has repeatedly violated the constitution and many other laws, while lecturing society about “removing the Church from politics.” CC leaders act as if they are the only ones who have the right to violate the constitution with impunity.
The Holy See of Etchmiadzin issued a statement condemning CC’s illegal plans to “reform the Armenian Church.” The Holy See stated: This “is a clear violation of the constitutional order, the Church’s right of self-government, as well as the international fundamental principles of freedom of conscience and religion.”
We now turn to Point 100 which states: “Organize a conference for pro-state Diaspora organizations to adopt a concept of Armenia-Diaspora cooperation in peacetime, and to form mechanisms for its implementation.”
This is the Pashinyan government’s latest attempt to divide and weaken existing Armenia-Diaspora relationships, in addition to many other steps by the Pashinyan regime that harm the interests of all Armenians.
Here are some of the other steps that Pashinyan and his incompetent appointee, Zareh Sinanyan, the so-called “High Commissioner of Diaspora Affairs for Armenia,” have undertaken against the Diaspora.
Instead of utilizing the Diaspora as a valuable asset, the Armenian government is undermining its relationship with seven million Diaspora Armenians.
Pashinyan began his rule eight years ago by shutting down the Diaspora Ministry — the main the bridge between Armenia and the Diaspora.
He has repeatedly antagonized the Diaspora publicly. At a 2024 government conference in Yerevan for hundreds of Diaspora Armenians who had come to Yerevan from around the world, Pashinyan rudely said: “We don’t need your help. Armenia can take care of its own needs.”
In 2025, during his visit to Turkey, Pashinyan told a group of Istanbul Armenians: “Don’t rely on me. The Prime Minister is not responsible for Armenians around the world. The Diaspora must solve its own problems in its communities.”
We should also add Pashinyan’s blacklist of Diaspora Armenians who are banned from entering Armenia simply because they said something he did not like.
By Bruce Janigian,
International lawyer, diplomat and author
Immediately following the Iran ceasefire agreement of 7-8 April 2026, Israel stepped up its massive bombing campaign in Beirut. In addition to millions of Lebanese being displaced, Lebanese Christians continued to be killed in indiscriminate bombings that have been described as “a new massacre”.
For years, Christian Palestinians have continued to have their lands expropriated and faced torture or murder along with their Muslim cousins. Syria’s Assad was long considered to be a protector of his Christian communities, as was even Saddam in Iraq, whose well known foreign minister, Tarak Aziz, was a Chaldean Christian.
Few today seem to understand that the beating heart of Christendom was located in the Middle East and that the US-Israeli partnership has contributed massively to its extinction. This partnership continues to do so today, since Iran safeguards its Christian communities and has proven a valuable friend to its tiny neighboring Armenia, the first Christian nation in the world. That small nation has endured millennia of trials to its faithful and is once again threatened by Turkic neighbors with a history of brutal massacres. These are, of course, Turkey, but also Israel’s friend, Azerbaijan. The latter was supported in recently dismembering the ancient lands of Armenia and now threatens further disruptions by linking itself with Turkey in a corridor through Armenia, separating it from Iran, in a project fully supported by the US.
Understanding the history of this region should precede going into wars that devastate its populations. When US president Woodrow Wilson wanted to weigh in on what should become of the then collapsing Ottoman Empire, he commissioned an investigation to travel to the region, the Harbord Commission. They were to determine what nation states should emerge based on historical and demographic analysis. The conclusion presented by General Harbord was three nationalities long submerged under the Ottoman yoke that were deserving of their own independent nations: the Palestinians, Kurds, and Armenians. (Of course Iran, with its diverse minorities, was never part of the Ottoman Empire and did not participate in the World War.)
So how does one connect up the history which seems so misunderstood today in the US. I suggest two books, From the Holy Mountain by William Dalrymple and Persona Non Grata by Avery Mann.
The Evangelical Christian leadership in the USA seems wholly ignorant of the debt all “modern” Christians owe to those who established the religion and kept it alive under the greatest adversity the world could muster against them. Those still carrying on deserve protection.
(c) Bruce Janigian
- Ruzanna Stepanian
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian threatened to turn Samvel Karapetian into a “tramp” on Wednesday in an intensifying war of words with the indicted billionaire emerging as his main election challenger.
Karapetian’s political team cried foul on Tuesday as the ruling Civil Contract party hastily pushed through the Armenian parliament legal amendments banning the tycoon from giving his name to his opposition alliance that will run in the June 7 parliamentary elections. The alliance was unveiled and named Strong Armenia With Samvel Karapetian just a week ago.
Critics said the amendments highlighted Pashinian’s fears that Civil Contract will be collectively defeated by Karapetian’s bloc and other major opposition groups. Karapetian’s nephew and right-hand man Narek aired later on Tuesday a short video message mockingly urging Pashinian not to be afraid of the tycoon.
“He won’t do anything bad to you,” said Narek Karapetian. “When he comes out [of house arrest,] he has a couple of things to tell you.”
“How can I not be afraid?” Pashinian responded tartly the next morning. “I’m afraid that by the end of the year you’ll go from being a billionaire to a tramp.”
“This is what happens when a tramp by soul becomes prime minister,” shot back Narek Karapetian.
The tycoon challenged the seizure of the Electric Networks of Armenia (ENA) operator in an international arbitration body, seeking $500 million in damages. Despite the legal action, Pashinian’s government is expected to formally nationalize ENA soon.
Karapetian was initially charged with calling for a violent regime change. Investigators also filed tax evasion, fraud and money laundering charges against him following his subsequent decision to challenge Pashinian’s party in the 2026 elections. The tycoon, who was moved to house arrest in late December, rejects all the accusations as politically motivated.
Pashinian pledged to “finally shut down your money laundering system” late on Tuesday when he responded to Karapetian’s scathing statement about his April 1 visit to Moscow marked by Russian President Vladimir Putin’s stern warnings to the Armenian premier.
Putin specifically warned Armenian authorities against barring what he called pro-Russian opposition groups or politicians from running in Armenia’s upcoming parliamentary elections. He clearly singled out Karapetian. The latter claimed that Pashinian “disgraced himself in Moscow” and set the stage for a devastating “economic war” with Russia.
On 10 April, 19 representatives of Armenian civil society arrived in Azerbaijan. Together with 20 Azerbaijanis, they will take part in a bilateral round table on 10–12 April, organised as part of the “Bridge of Peace” initiative.This is the fourth meeting between civil society representatives from the two countries. Armenians have travelled to Azerbaijan for the second time.
Unlike the visit organized in November 2025, they arrived by land this time, not by air. They crossed the demarcated Tavush–Kazakh section of the border and completed border and passport control procedures there.
Azerbaijanis travelled to Armenia via the same route in February this year. Observers described it as a “symbolic step”.
The initiative’s work on the Armenian side is coordinated by the analytical center Armenian Council. Its president, Areg Kochinyan, has repeatedly said that meetings held in Armenia and Azerbaijan should be seen as “attempts to lift the iron curtain”.
Armenians involved in the “Bridge of Peace” project view the initiative as an additional platform for direct dialogue.
They believe regular contacts can make a significant contribution to building mutual trust, expanding professional cooperation and gradually normalizing Armenian-Azerbaijani relations.
Below is the information available so far.
What is known about the meeting’s agenda?
According to Armenian Council, dialogue between civil society representatives from Armenia and Azerbaijan follows the peace agenda adopted at the Washington summit on 8 August 2025.
The center says the two-day round tables will cover the following issues:
- the current state of the peace process,
- actions carried out by participants of the “Bridge of Peace” initiative in their countries and their results,
- the situation in the region.
“Separate sessions will focus on efforts to promote peace within societies and to increase trust at the next stages of the peace process,” the centre said.
The analytical center also stressed that the “Bridge of Peace” initiative continues to foster dialogue and direct interaction between civil society representatives from the two countries.
Context
The first meeting between civil society representatives from Armenia and Azerbaijan took place on 21–22 October 2025 in Yerevan.
A month later, on 21–22 November, Armenians travelled to Baku. At that time, Armenia’s government allocated about 17.5 million drams (around $20,000) to organize charter flights between Yerevan and Baku.
After the second meeting, the sides agreed to continue working contacts and mutual visits. The initiative then received the name “Bridge of Peace”.
Initially, five from each country took part in the initiative. In 2026, organizers expanded the number of participants.
On 13–14 February 2026, 20 from the Armenian side and 19 from the Azerbaijani side took part in the third conference of the “Bridge of Peace” initiative. The event took place in the town of Tsaghkadzor in Armenia’s Kotayk region.
From that point, Naira Martikyan, editor and head of JAMnews’ Armenian office, also joined the initiative. She is currently in Azerbaijan as well.
The agenda for civil society representatives from the two countries covers a wide range of issues related to the current stage and development of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. These include the signing of a peace agreement and the opening of communications.
As part of the initiative, the participants also hold meetings with senior officials.
During the trip to Baku in autumn 2025, Armenians met Hikmet Hajiyev, head of the foreign policy department of Azerbaijan’s presidential administration.
Azerbaijanis, during their visit to Armenia, met Deputy Foreign Minister Vahan Kostanyan and Secretary of the Security Council Armen Grigoryan.
The Diaspora National Mobilization Conference took place from April 11 to 12, in Paris, bringing together more than 150 distinguished intellectuals, political leaders, and public and community figures from Armenia, Artsakh, and 26 countries across the Diaspora. The conference provided a comprehensive assessment of Armenia–Diaspora relations amid ongoing national challenges and evolving geopolitical realities, highlighting the urgent need for coordinated mobilization around a unified pan-Armenian agenda.
At the opening session of the conference, welcoming remarks were delivered by His Holiness Karekin II and His Holiness Aram I, as well as by the Speaker of the National Assembly of the Republic of Artsakh and Acting President of the Republic of Artsakh, Ashot Danielyan. Best wishes for the success of the conference were also conveyed by ARF Bureau Representative Armen Rustamyan.
Following discussions on the four-point agenda, the conference adopted relevant decisions, outlined key priorities, and identified the steps to be undertaken in that direction.
A. THE STRATEGIC ROLE OF THE DIASPORA AND THE POLITICAL AGENDA
The role of the Diaspora in addressing the challenges facing the Armenian people holds strategic importance. Today, as Armenian statehood faces serious security threats and the foundations of national identity are being targeted, a pan-Armenian mobilization around national agendas has become imperative. The national and state interests and goals of Armenia, Artsakh, and the Armenian people are inseparable.
At the current stage, the key priorities of the Diaspora’s political agenda are:
Strengthening Armenian statehood. Developing and implementing a comprehensive strategic program aimed at reinforcing the Republic of Armenia’s strength and security.
Recognition and reparation of the Armenian Genocide. Despite the policies pursued by the current authorities of Armenia, the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the pursuit of reparations remain imperative.
The Artsakh issue. The issue of Artsakh remains on the agenda and includes the following practical steps:
- Pursuing the immediate release of prisoners of war
- Protecting the rights of the people of Artsakh and internationalizing the right to collective return
- Safeguarding the Armenian cultural heritage of occupied Artsakh
- Providing full support to the functioning of Artsakh’s state institutions
- Working to protect the civil rights and address the socio-economic challenges of forcibly displaced Armenians from Artsakh currently residing in Armenia
B. THE ROLE OF NATIONAL VALUES AND THE ARMENIAN CHURCH IN PRESERVING ARMENIAN IDENTITY IN THE DIASPORA
Armenian identity is rooted in Armenian history, the Armenian Church, language, culture, and national values, which constitute the fundamental pillars of the Diaspora’s existence. In the current critical circumstances, the Armenian Church, as in the past, continues to serve not only as a spiritual anchor but also as a cornerstone of the Armenian people’s national and spiritual identity.
Condemning the campaign unleashed by the authorities of the Republic of Armenia against Armenian values and the Armenian Apostolic Church, it is necessary to take into account the following priorities:
- Resistance. Any step or action directed against national identity must be met with organized and unified resistance.
- Unity. Prevent division and establish strong unity around the Church.
- Education and upbringing. Strengthen and expand the educational, cultural, and spiritual systems of the Diaspora to ensure the preservation and transmission of Armenian identity to larger numbers of future generations. Foster in the younger generation a sense of awareness of national collective interests and the will to uphold and take ownership of them.
C. KEY ISSUES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF ARMENIA–DIASPORA RELATIONS
The national value system is the primary source of strength for the Republic of Armenia and the Armenian nation as a whole. It must serve as the indispensable foundation for shaping Armenia–Diaspora relations and the pan-Armenian agenda. Following the 44-day war, as well as the most recent war in Artsakh and the subsequent ethnic cleansing, the policies pursued by the Armenian authorities have led to deep disappointment and disillusionment among the Diaspora, giving rise to concerning tendencies of internal detachment from the homeland.
The policy of the current Armenian authorities—marked by the neglect, division, and disregard of the organized Diaspora and its support for the homeland—is strongly condemnable. Equally concerning is the inaction of the Armenian authorities toward Armenian communities in the Middle East facing existential threats.
Accordingly, the priorities of Armenia–Diaspora relations are:
Strategic Armenia–Diaspora cooperation: Restore and elevate institutional ties with the Diaspora to a new qualitative level.
Effective mechanisms for utilizing pan-Armenian capacity and networks: Ensure the broad participation of Diaspora professionals across various state projects and sectors, with the prospect of assuming responsibilities.
Formation of a unified Armenia–Diaspora framework: Develop and implement a unified policy across political, diplomatic, economic, scientific, military-industrial, informational, and educational-cultural spheres. In this context, the Diaspora’s professional potential plays a significant role in the application of Armenian soft power.
Western Armenian is endangered: The protection and development of Western Armenian requires an active role not only from the Diaspora but also from the Republic of Armenia.
Enhancing the role of the Diaspora: Initiate professional discussions on the possible models of Diaspora participation in the governance of the Republic of Armenia and in advancing pan-Armenian issues, with the aim of achieving national consensus and legal solutions within Armenia’s political system.
D. DIASPORA MOBILIZATION AND REVITALIZATION FOR PAN-ARMENIAN GOALS
The need for unity, strengthening, and reorganization of the Diaspora around pan-Armenian agendas is indisputable.
It is imperative to consolidate the Diaspora around national goals, modernize Diaspora structures and overall modes of operation, foster direct cooperation between communities, and consistently strengthen collective capacity. In this process of reorganization, the full engagement of youth is especially vital.
Diaspora mobilization must be carried out around strategic programs, taking into account the following priorities:
- Strengthening the global Armenian nation and the Republic of Armenia as two components of one nation
- Supporting the process of building a strong national state
- Advancing the Armenian Cause and pan-Armenian objectives
In light of the above conclusions and outlined priorities, the Diaspora National Mobilization Conference emphasizes that, in today’s complex geopolitical environment, the vitality and strength of the Diaspora are inseparably linked to the homeland.
Our unity must be anchored in enduring national values and a vision of strengthening statehood as a shared agenda. The national and state interests and goals of Armenia, Artsakh, and the Armenian people are inseparable.
We reject the divisive and alienating approaches adopted by the current authorities of the Republic of Armenia.
Instead, we call for the establishment of healthy, coordinated, and balanced relations, which are the only guarantee for strengthening the Armenian nation and preserving Armenian statehood.
With a strong sense of national responsibility, our collective potential must serve exclusively pan-Armenian goals, ensuring a secure and guaranteed future for the Armenian people.
To this end, we emphasize the importance of the participation of all citizens of the Republic of Armenia—regardless of their place of residence—in National Assembly elections. We call on all citizens of the Republic of Armenia, including those abroad, to travel to Armenia by their own means and take part in the elections.
It is necessary to change the current authorities’ anti-national course and establish a national state-oriented path of development.
On August 8, 2025, President Donald Trump hosted Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan at the White House, where the two foreign leaders signed a peace agreement. The White House released a statement that the agreement, initiated under the Biden administration, is “a landmark achievement for international diplomacy that only President Trump could deliver.”
On January 13, 2026, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan returned to Washington to meet with Secretary of State Marco Rubio to discuss implementation of the agreed corridor across southern Armenia, which Trump insisted be named the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP).
Azerbaijan and Turkey could enjoy trade and transit across Armenia if they established diplomatic relations and ended their blockade.
If sincerity is the basis of peace, then the chances for a lasting solution are tiny. None of the partners professing to seek peace is sincere. Trump seeks a Nobel Prize and his name on signs. Rubio will play the loyal yes-man to keep his job, regardless of where his moral compass might point. The deeply unpopular Pashinyan—who increasingly seems like the Armenian version of former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili—rushes concessions to position himself as the only candidate in forthcoming elections who can deliver peace, no matter that under his watch, Armenia fought two wars and lost both badly. Aliyev, meanwhile, hopes to use the corridor to bifurcate Armenia’s Syunik province. Azerbaijan’s hostage-taking and kangaroo courts appear designed to humiliate Armenians and undermine peace more than achieve it.
The basic problem with the TRIPP is that it serves no economic purpose. Azerbaijan and Turkey could enjoy trade and transit across Armenia if they established diplomatic relations and ended their blockade. That is a decision that only Ankara can make, as Turkey calls the broader strategic shots for Azerbaijan.
Indeed, while Azerbaijan and Turkey argue they need a corridor to enable trade, they play Trump and Rubio for fools. The entire time that Aliyev whined about Armenia’s blockaded border being an impediment to trade, Azerbaijan directed its trade through Iran, a country whose trade relations with Azerbaijan exceed Armenia’s. Indeed, in 2022, Azerbaijan and Iran signed an agreement for a new transit corridor through Iran.
While Aliyev struts at the White House, local dynamics that have nothing to do with the United States or even Armenia shape his actions. Just as Azerbaijan used military force to end Nagorno-Karabakh’s constitutional autonomy, so, too, did Aliyev last month do the same thing with the landlocked exclave of Nakhchivan, which also had been an autonomous republic. Aliyev will now rule Nakhchivan through an appointed representative, ending any semblance of local rule and continuing Aliyev’s transformation of Azerbaijan into the Eritrea or North Korea of the Caucasus.
Aliyev’s powerplay over Nakhchivan suggests dark clouds on the horizon, both for Azerbaijan and potentially for the region. Aliyev is the scion of a family dynasty founded by his father Heydar, a former KGB agent and Central Committee Member of the Soviet Union, but one whose son is rumored to be autistic and two daughters hampered by their own personal and social problems, so managing a future transition will be difficult.
What is looming in Azerbaijan is a three-way mafia war, the outcome of which will determine the fate of the Aliyev dynasty.
While Aliyev was born in Baku at a time when Heydar was the local KGB chief, the Aliyev family roots itself in Nakhchivan, where Heydar himself was born. Over years of Aliyev’s rule, Vasif Talibov, chairman of the Supreme Assembly of the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic from 1995 until 2022, consolidated local control and transformed Nakhchivan into his own mafia fiefdom. A desire to kneecap competition best explains Aliyev’s decision to impose direct rule over Nakhchivan. It is the Azerbaijani equivalent of the New York Genovese crime family’s infiltration into the Patriarca family’s territory in Massachusetts. At the same time, tension grows between the powerful Pashayev family and Aliyev himself. His marriage was supposed to bring unity between the families but instead brought de facto divorce.
What is looming in Azerbaijan is a three-way mafia war, the outcome of which will determine the fate of the Aliyev dynasty. If the Aliyevs lose out, Ilham is likely to launch a new skirmish, if not war, against Armenia to restore an image of strength or use emergency provisions to imprison economic competitors or political threats.
Panarmenian
A court has ruled to cancel the restrictive measure imposed on Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II, upholding the defense’s complaint.
This was announced on Facebook by lawyer Ara Zohrabyan, who noted that the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction of First Instance had granted the appeal filed by the defense, ruling that the preventive measure applied to the Catholicos must be revoked.
“As you know, the Investigative Committee of Armenia (investigator Ara Avagyan) had issued a decision applying a ban on leaving the country as a preventive measure against the Catholicos of All Armenians.
Due to that restriction, as well as the investigator’s refusal to grant permission for a temporary trip to Georgia, the Catholicos of All Armenians was unable to attend the funeral service of Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia Ilia II.
The investigator’s decision was appealed to a superior prosecutor. The Prosecutor General’s Office of Armenia (prosecutor Khachatur Galstyan) decided to reject the complaint. Following the prosecutor’s refusal, an appeal was submitted to the court.
Today, on April 10, 2026, the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction of First Instance (Judge Ani Danielyan) ruled to grant the defense’s complaint. Based on the court’s decision, the preventive measure applied to the Catholicos of All Armenians is subject to removal,” he wrote.
On February 14, the Investigative Committee had decided to impose a ban on leaving the country as a preventive measure against the Catholicos of All Armenians.
******************************************************************************************If you wish to read daily updated Armenian news and commentary,
—
URGENT….Davit Minasyan was taken to prison from Nair Medical Center… Lusine Martirosyan
April 13, 2026
Davit Minasyan, lawyer Lusine Martirosyan writes. “URGENT…
Just now, Davit Minasyan was taken to prison from Nair Medical Center…”.
—
Erdogan will never come to Yerevan. he genetically hates Armenia and Armenians. Mher
April 13, 2026
The current government of Armenia is trying to destroy the memory of the Armenian Genocide. Nikol Pashinyan’s government actually denies the Armenian Genocide. 168 TVof Revue gave such an assessment on the air of the program Turkologist Mher Abrahamyanspeaking on the topic of the 111th anniversary of the Great Genocide and the developments taking place in the field of Armenian-Turkish relations.
“The government of Armenia denies the Armenian Genocide, and today’s ruler of Armenia announces in the same style as in the 2000s. Erdogan announced that “we need to understand whether this genocide happened or not, and for that we should choose historians who will study it.” Do you remember Erdogan’s statement in the early 2000s? In this case, today’s ruler of Armenia declares that “one thing we need to understand is who was guilty of this genocide”, commented the Turkologist.
Mher Abrahamyan notes that Azerbaijan is trying to take the initiative after the dismissal of Director Edita Gzoyan from the last famous incident that took place at the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute.
“The Azerbaijanis reacted very quickly to this and announced that it was not the Turks or the Azerbaijanis who committed the genocide, but the Armenians, and the steps that Armenia was taking until 2018-19. in various international platforms, not only for the purpose of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, but also for the purpose of preventing genocides, were nullified, and now the Azerbaijanis are trying to fill its place with their own, that is, the Azerbaijanis should become the pioneers in this matter, along with it, denying the Armenian Genocide and advancing the invented “genocidal processes” in which Armenia has never participated, and it is a policy invented by them, which is one of the important emphasis of Azerbaijan, in opposition to Armenia and the Armenians.”
Taking into account that Turkey is now fully implementing “soft power” diplomacy towards Armenia, the Turkologist predicts that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will issue another standard statement on April 24, talking about “common pain” and denying the fact of the Armenian Genocide, and the current government of Armenia will take this into account and agree with that point of view.
Mher Abrahamyan is convinced that Erdogan will not come to Yerevan to participate in the 8th summit of the European Political Community to be held on May 4, despite Nikol Pashinyan’s invitation.
“Erdogan, I think, will never come to Yerevan, because Erdogan genetically hates Armenia and Armenians, and besides, having a very important role in the region today, he will never come to Armenia. he is of the position that they should go to the sultan, not the sultan should go to them,” the Turkologist believes.
Speaking about the US-Iran negotiations that took place in Islamabad on Saturday, the Turkish expert noted that it was clear from the beginning that the negotiations in Islamabad would not yield results. According to the Turkologist, Islamabad was an attempt to understand each other’s moods.
Mher Abrahamyan believes that war operations will continue in the region.
The Turkologist does not think that Turkey will be involved in the war against Iran, but he also adds that if Turkey enters the war, we can consider it the beginning of the third world war.
“Turkey conducted its diplomacy in a very professional manner. Being the only Muslim country in NATO, Turkey was able to very diplomatically use its position in the Islamic world, its relationship with the United States, and also very diplomatically use its relationship with Iran. Why did he do this? It is very important for Turkey to understand who can gain hegemony in the region: Iran by defending itself or the United States by conquering Iran, and Turkey did not make a mistake and, it can be said, showed restrained diplomacy in this war and tries to participate in various negotiations in every way, where it can win various dividends for itself.
If this happens and Turkey enters this war, it will lead to a much bigger global war. If Turkey participated in the war, we can consider that the third world war officially started. I don’t think that if Turkey starts military operations against Iran, the rest of the players in the world will just remain in the role of observers, and I don’t think that Turkey will enter this war against Iran,” Abrahamyan specifically mentioned.
Let’s remind that last year, 2025 On June 20, after the meeting with Turkish President Erdogan in Istanbul, Nikol Pashinyan announced that he was going to invite Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to participate in the 2026. at the European Political Community Summit to be held in Yerevan in the spring.
Full interview in the video.
—
168: CP party’s security concept. normative illusion and strategy
April 13, 2026
The concept of external security of the Republic of Armenia proposed by the ruling party is structured according to a certain logic and has normative integrity. It is anchored on a combination of international legitimacy, economic interconnectedness, predictability, a peace agenda and defense reforms. However, the proposal’s vulnerability is caused by the largely doctrinal nature of this structure.
First of all, the overestimation of the importance of international legitimacy as a source of strength and a deterrent is noticeable. Undoubtedly, from the point of view of international law, the international recognition of the country’s territorial integrity contributes to the strengthening of the country’s subjectivity and its political and diplomatic resistance. But the practice of modern international relations proves that legitimacy itself does not eliminate the anarchic character of the international environment and, therefore, cannot replace either deterrence mechanisms, allied guarantees, or the state’s self-defense potential. In other words, legitimacy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ensuring external security.
Against this background, the qualification of the army as a “reserve” tool in the published document, which, according to the authors, is required if the diplomatic and political “means” of containment “did not work” is more than worrying. From a normative point of view, such an approach is perhaps justified, as it emphasizes the defensive nature of military potential and, in general, is consistent with the logic of international law. However, in the theory of security and the practice of conflict resolution, the military potential performs not only the function of forced reaction, but also of strategic deterrence. The state’s effective defense capability itself affects the calculations of a potential opponent even at the stage when the political-diplomatic mechanisms have not been exhausted.
Considering the military component as a “reserve” rather than among the main components of Armenia’s security architecture also creates a logical contradiction.
On the one hand, the pre-election program describes the army as a tool that should act only when diplomatic, legal and political measures have failed.
On the other hand, state policy consistently emphasizes the importance of large-scale military reforms, development of defense infrastructure, modernization of armaments and introduction of a comprehensive security system. Such duality is difficult to consider consistent. if the power component really only has an auxiliary importance, then it is difficult to explain why it is given so much institutional and financial-material attention. On the contrary, if the state practically proceeds from the irreplaceability of the army as a basic factor of survival, then considering it as a “reserve” is a political-normative record and not a reflection of the real hierarchy of priorities in the field of security. Therefore, it can be concluded that fixing the “reserve” role of the army in the security policy program is primarily a political message addressed to the enemy and, in its essence, is a consequence of the pacification strategy adopted by the current government.
One of the shortcomings of the presented program from the point of view of international security and geo-economics is due to the fact that it is almost entirely built on the logic of cooperation, while Armenia’s external environment is clearly competitive. Thus, in the case of the TRIPP project, it is expressed in the fact that the project ignores the conflict of interests of the competing powers and, instead, proceeds from the assumption that the transport and logistics interconnection itself will form an interest in the stability of Armenia among external actors. However, in the conditions of the conflict of interests of foreign powers, such a route is unlikely to automatically act as a stabilizing factor, since it initially contains elements of not only economic interdependence, but also political influence, strategic competition and external pressures.
Also problematic is the ownership structure of the planned Armenian-American joint venture, which already limits Armenia’s ability to influence the formation of the strategic parameters of the project and effectively control the economic and political processes related to it.
The project relies more on the normative expectation of mutual benefit than on the ability to realistically perceive economic interdependence as a mechanism for leveraging influence. Therefore, it is not clear whether the optimism emphasized in the document towards TRIPP and its strategic role is due to external guarantees unknown to the public, or, on the contrary, to an underestimation of obvious risks.
The next problematic circumstance is related to the emphasis on internal discourse, as well as psychological and cultural transformations, as components of external security. In the long term, such an approach is quite justified, because sustainable peace does require changes in public consciousness, educational policy, and more broadly, political culture. However, here it is necessary to distinguish between the reduction of internal conflict and the external change of Azerbaijan’s strategic behavior. however important the first is, the second does not automatically follow from it.
Moreover, such a transformation implies reciprocity, since its stabilizing effect is possible only if similar processes – softening of hostile rhetoric, abandoning the mobilizing image of the enemy, revising educational and symbolic practices – also take place on the other side of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. In the absence of this reciprocity, the unilateral transformation may not contribute to the reduction of tension, but, on the contrary, may create an additional asymmetry in the perception of threats and political readiness for resistance. Therefore, the effectiveness of this component depends not only on the changes taking place inside Armenia, but also on the extent to which it is combined with tougher deterrence institutions, crisis management tools, and a realistic assessment of the fact that there are no signs of adequate socio-psychological and cultural transformation in Azerbaijan today.
The next problem concerns the correlation between the program’s ideology and rationality, where the peace agenda, predictability, and de-escalation are given an axiomatic status rather than an important one. Meanwhile, in the logic of international security analysis, the state’s behavior is considered rational to the extent that it contributes to the maximum security of the country. Hence, an important warning. considering the normative position not as a means of ensuring security, but as an end in itself, the ideological component inevitably weakens the rationality of strategic behavior. In that case, the state can overestimate the stabilizing effect of its own moderation, underestimating the situations when external actors interpret that moderation not as constructiveness, but as a lack of will to resist. Therefore, the key question is not whether the peace agenda itself is desirable or not, but whether it maintains its instrumental nature, that is, whether it is subjected to the problems of maximum security, or whether it gradually acquires the characteristics of a self-sufficient political doctrine.
Summing up, let’s note that although the presented concept should be considered as a normative framework, its practical viability depends on the extent to which such an ideological structure can be turned into a policy of maximum provision of real security. The vulnerability of the ruling party’s program is, first of all, due to the deep gap between the normative integrity of the model and the reality characterized by power competition, conflict of interests, geo-economic dependencies and strategic uncertainties in the external environment.
The external and security provisions of the 2021 pre-election program of the “Civil Agreement” party were also based on such dreamlike hopes, which brought irreversible human, moral, material and territorial losses. Now the CP, sticking to the same mentality, makes an early claim in the pre-election program that “peace has been established between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and thus, the era of peaceful development has opened for Armenia”, while this is not a peace based on reconciliation, but a “peace” imposed through coercion.
Armen Martirosyan
Deputy of the RA Supreme Council (1990-95)
Deputy of the RA National Assembly (1995-99)
RA Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
—
RFE/RL – Pashinian In ‘Pre-Election’ Meeting With Armenian Business Leaders
- Astghik Bedevian
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian touted his economic record on Monday at a meeting with about two dozen owners and top executives of leading Armenian companies which some analysts linked to the country’s upcoming parliamentary elections.
Pashinian specifically cited economic growth recorded during his eight-year rule and “peace established between Armenia and Azerbaijan.”
“Armenia has never experienced such an unprecedented period of opportunity in its history,” he said in his opening remarks. “We need to be able to use this situation continuously. It is obvious that the government cannot do this without key players in the economy and the real sector of the economy.”
Pashinian’s office reported no details of the ensuing discussion of the Armenian government’s economic policies and “a number of questions related to problem solving.”
Observers were quick to note that the meeting came less than two months before Armenia’s showdown parliamentary elections. Two of the main opposition election contenders are led by wealthy businessmen, Samvel Karapetian and Gagik Tsarukian, who are very critical of the government’s track record.
Both men are facing different criminal charges rejected by them as politically motivated. Not surprisingly, neither they nor any representatives of their firms were invited to the meeting with Pashinian.
“The Armenian authorities, taking advantage of their position, involve big businessmen in such propaganda events,” Suren Parsian, a Yerevan-based economist, told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service. “Meetings in such a format add to the public perception that the authorities have the backing of big business and can easily hold on to power.”
Two of the participants of the meeting, Samvel Aleksanian and Artak Sargsian, were affiliated with former President Serzh Sarkisian’s Republican Party of Armenia (HHK) until the 2018 “velvet revolution” that brought Pashinian to power. Both tycoons were notorious for reportedly pressuring their employees to vote for Sarkisian or the HHK in various elections. They are believed to have supported the current government since then.
Aleksanian has wide-ranging business interests that make him one of Armenia’s richest men. In particular, his family owns a mobile phone retailer that became last year the country’s number one corporate taxpayer as a result of cashing in on Western sanctions against Russia. The company, Mobile Center, import smartphones and re-exports most of them to Russia.
—