May 9, 2026
The annual Victory Day parade, dedicated to the 81st anniversary of the victory in World War II, was held in Moscow’s Red Square, which lasted about 45 minutes, and during which there were no columns of military equipment due to the current operational situation, also taking into account the risk factor of terrorism.
However, there were demonstration flights with the participation of the Russian “Strizhi” and “Ruskie Vityaz” aviation groups.
Note that this is official was famous became still at the end of April.
And it was only after this decision that President of Ukraine Zelensky threatened, stating:
“Russia will hold a parade with military equipment on May 9 in Moscow. If this happens, it will be the first time that they will not be able to show their military equipment, fear-mongering UAVs will be buzzing over Red Square. This shows that they are not strong and we must continue our sanctions against them.”
In other words, Zelensky lied in Yerevan when he announced that Moscow was going to hold a festive parade with a display of military equipment, in fact, to create the impression that such a decision was made after his Yerevan threat, which is not the case.
—
The deepening of Armenia-Poland cooperation has a geopolitical context
May 9, 2026
These days, RA Minister of Defense Suren Papikyan was on an official visit to Poland, during which he participated in the “Defence24 Days” conference, toured the forum’s pavilions and got acquainted with the displayed samples of military equipment and weapons.
In addition, he met with the Deputy Prime Minister of Slovakia, Minister of Defense Robert Kaliniak in Warsaw, to which we have touched on.
Later, RA Minister of Defense Suren Papikyan also had a private meeting with Poland’s Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of National Defense Władysław Kośniak-Kamiś, during which the importance of implementing military-technical cooperation within the framework of the agreement on military-technical cooperation signed in February of this year was discussed, and military education, exchange of experience and together to the exercises participation.
In addition, an agreement was reached regarding the opening of an attaché office for defense issues at the RA Embassy in Warsaw in the near future. This is according to the official statement of the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia.
And after the negotiations, Władysław Kosyniak-Kamish and Suren Papikyan announced from the Polish side that Poland and Armenia have agreed to conduct joint military exercises.
“Countries striving for stability, security and cooperation are our dialogue partners. That’s why we’re interested with joint military exercises, with the cooperation between military universities and the exchange of experience between the Polish and Armenian defense industries,” the Polish Defense Minister said during a joint press conference, according to Polish sources.
The involvement of the RA armed forces in international and joint military exercises certainly contributes to the increase of the combat capability of our army, in general, we should work to cooperate with everyone.
He is also of this opinion Shiraz Khachatryan, expert of “Henaket” analytical center, but, according to him, it is important in what format and with what tone, that is, it should be taken into account to what extent it contains a geopolitical component, in this case it refers to Poland.
“It is important to understand what is on the ground and how risky the information tone is, taking into account the rhetoric of global actors towards Russia. In other words, we need to understand whether we are getting involved in something more than what will be the result on the real ground.
Accordingly, it is better to cooperate silently in such cases, as in many cases with India, with France, of course, not counting the leakages related to the purchase of weapons, but this does not happen from the Armenian side either. And the deepening of Armenia-Poland cooperation, especially the subject of joint military exercises, is not only a bilateral defense agenda, but it has a wider geopolitical context.
It is no secret that Poland is a hostile country for Russia, which is one of NATO’s toughest anti-Russian positions, moreover, it actively participates in the process of military support to Ukraine, so Moscow will not perceive this only as a stage or step of reorientation of the RA security system in the western direction, but against the background of active military cooperation with the USA, India, France, this will lead to a new deterioration of Armenian-Russian relations, which may turn into a more considerate policy towards Yerevan in the region.
I am sure that Turkey and Azerbaijan are closely following such processes, that Armenia wants to create a new military partnership network with the Western Pole, they will advance their agenda in parallel, intensifying the pressure so that such ties do not become institutionalized. What I am saying is that if something is done, at least silence should be maintained, even in the conditions of active military exercises against the Russian Federation in various places,” explained our interlocutor.
It should be noted that in his speech within the framework of Defense 24 Days, Polish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Władysław Kosyniak-Kamisz proposed to NATO to accelerate the growth of defense expenditures, taking into account security threats. In particular, according to him, the NATO member countries should reach the level of defense expenditures of 5 percent of the GDP 5 years earlier than planned (until 2030).
And in the context of Armenia-Poland relations, let’s remind that after the change of power in 2018, the company “Lyubava-Armenia” stopped its activities. in 2019 from the Ministry of High-tech Industry 168.amto had reported that “the decision to stop the activity of “Lyubava-Armenia” in the Republic of Armenia is determined solely by economic circumstances.”
Later NEWS.amIn a conversation with the former Ambassador of Poland to Armenia Jerzy Nowakowski presented other reasons for the liquidation of the Armenian enterprise of the Polish company Lubawa SA.
“The Armenian revolution of 2018 inspired hope for activation of “Lyubava” and strengthening of business cooperation.
In the end, “Lyubavan” decided to leave Armenia after a meeting with Pashinyan, during which he accused the company of cooperating with the previous government, and said that the company cannot expect the trust of the new, “revolutionary” team,” Yezhi Nowakovsky told the media.
It should be noted that “Lyubava-Armenia”, the first joint Armenian-Polish military-industrial enterprise, has been operating in Armenia since 2014 and was engaged in the production of modern multifunctional camouflage technologies, producing such products of military and technical significance as: fake targets, technical and other tents, helmets, body armor, camouflage nets, etc., and all this according to NATO standards.
—
Shushi’s loss did not begin during his defense, but much earlier.
May 9, 2026
6 years ago today, May 9, 2020, Nikol Pashinyan and Anna Hakobyan had left Artsakh to celebrate the Triathlon.
“Shushi gives us greater confidence in our strengths, our future, our present. We all have a collective and united debt to our martyrs. We have to fulfill that debt with honor and return that debt tenfold to their descendants,” declared Pashinyan at that time, who had managed to say before that, “Artsakh is Armenia, and that’s it.”
And then, in the 44-day war of 2020, Shush was lost or surrendered in a planned manner, although Nikol Pashinyan rejected Russian President Putin’s proposal to stop the war on October 19, 2020, because the Azerbaijani refugees would return there, but the fortress city would remain under the control of the Armenian side. Or, as if Pashinyan was very affected by receiving the news of losing Shush on November 7, 2020, and at that time he instructed Onik Gasparyan, the head of the General Staff of the RA Armed Forces, to take actions to take it back.
“On the afternoon of November 7, the head of the General Directorate of Security, Onik Gasparyan, reported to me about Shushi’s fall… Upon hearing the news of Shushi’s fall, my first reaction was the demand to do what you promised: to keep Shushi, to take him back. After all, I was informed about the countermeasures…” he said on June 20, 2023 at the Investigative Committee.
Another question is that, as on one occasion we wroteIn what capacity did Pashinyan give the order to take Shushi back with a counterattack?՝ as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia or as the supreme commander?
It is also a fact that for not properly organizing the defense of Shushi, only the former commander of the Armed Forces, General Mikael Arzumanyan, is accused, whose accusation ends on November 7, and the countermeasures were carried out after November 7 on the order of Pashinyan.
RA Investigative Committee in 2024 168.amto had reported that in 2020 The events that took place in the direction of Shushi after November 7 became the subject of investigation.
And Mikael Arzumanyan published in July 2023 statement referring to the organization of Shushi’s defense, in particular, he noted:
“I assumed the command of the Defense Army of the Republic of Artsakh on October 27, 2020, in such an extremely difficult situation, when the enemy had already crossed several defense zones and approached the Shushi border, a chaotic situation reigned in the army, the enemy had unconditional superiority both in the air and on the ground. In the current situation, I did my best to confront the enemy, who was numerous times superior in number and weaponry, and in some cases we had serious successes.
However, the enemy has concentrated more forces and resources, which the Armenian side did not have sufficient human or weapon resources to resist, which the political leadership was well aware of.
And the accusations brought against me are directly related to the political situations prevailing in Armenia at specific moments, to the chronology of accusations against each other by different people regarding Shushi’s handover.
It was for this purpose that I was chosen as a target, so that some people would try to wrap their accusations against me.
Those who know me are well aware that since the age of 18 I have been fighting for my Motherland with a weapon in my hand, and I am one of the first people to enter Shushi after the liberation of Shushi.
Therefore, I do not consider it a coincidence that I was chosen as a target.”
By the way, the CC stated in its message that it is based on the period starting from October 30.
2020 on October 29 168.amArkady Karapetyan, the first commander of the NKR Self-Defense Army (Ago) in a conversation with alarm was that the war has reached under the walls of Shushi, and Azerbaijan wants to take Shushi, and not only that, but the President of Artsakh, Arayik Harutyunyan, on the same day had reported՝ “The enemy is at most 5 kilometers from Shushi.”
Recently, in the context of the mentioned and related to the former head of the General Directorate of Internal Affairs Onik Gasparyan, the rumors became active again, and he proposed to organize a closed meeting, that is, he is not ready to speak publicly about the actions stemming from Nikol Pashinyan’s order to take Shushi back, although the same authorities and Nikol Pashinyan have said a lot publicly, how logical is it to base everything on the principle of secrecy?
However, the former military leadership will have to answer many questions related to the 44-day war.
And before that, we talked about the Shushi operation carried out 34 years ago and the loss of the fortified city in the 44-day war with Tigran Abrahamyan, secretary of the NA “I have honor” faction, and Gegham Manukyan, deputy of the NA “Armenia” faction, where did we go wrong, why did we lose Shushi, did we really value it when it existed?
Tigran Abrahamyan in my opinion, Nikol Pashinyan’s statement that Artsakh was never ours actually conveys a lot of information about his “efforts” and priorities in the 44-day war.
“And this is not only related to Shushi, that is, there is one main responsible for the defeat in the war and the surrender of Artsakh: it is the current government and its leader Pashinyan. And charging Mikayel Arzumanyan and others and depriving them of their freedom has only one purpose: to shift the responsibility from themselves and to put it on others. As for the advice of the day, the Shushi operation that took place in May 1992, it is about the political will, struggle, aspirations and victory of the Armenian people. Armenian history, with its victorious pages, cannot be corrected by any authority or figure, and containing Pashinyan’s Azeri theses. The announcements, which serve exclusively the interests of the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem, aim to neutralize in a certain way the government’s surrender policy and its severe consequences.168.amhe said in a conversation with
And to what extent did the loss of Hadrut lead to the loss of Shushi, and when were the “foundations” laid for losing the fortress city during the 44-day war? Gegham Manukyan noticed.
“Actually, the loss of Shushi did not begin during his defense, but much earlier, when in 2018, Nikol Pashinyan decided to head the Artsakh Defense Army live in an unbalanced state, when the government had just taken over, attacks began against the military, the participants and heroes of the Artsakh Liberation War, criminal cases were initiated, when the content of the army began to be questioned at every step.
What’s more, when the morale of the army turned into a big party of eating and drinking only bananas and Coca-Cola in military canteens. As for why Shushi fell during the actual 44-day military operations, it needs a complex analysis.
The RA political leadership and the ruling circles completely failed the actions to put the country, the state on the war tracks from the very beginning of the war, and successive mistakes led to the defeat of the war. And the Armenian people missed the greatest Artsakh victory because of the apikars. And looking from the distance of years, today, on the day of Shushi’s liberation, the biggest wish is to ask for forgiveness…”.
168.amthe wrote that the “trial” of the former military-political leadership of Artsakh in Baku on the agenda there was also the successful Shushi operation carried out by the Armenian side in May 1992. In particular, during the “court” sessions, videos related to the Shushi operation were presented, where, for example, Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan tells about the liberation of Shushi or the capture from a military point of view.
In the Baku military court, other videos were also published, where it was mentioned that “the capture of Shushi was carried out in 4 directions, which were led by Samvel Babayan, Seyran Ohanyan, Valery Chitchyan and Arkadi Karapetyan”, and that “General Gurgen Dalibaltayan also played an important role in the offensive operation of Shushi”, referring to whose words, they also claimed in the Azerbaijani court that they were involved in the operation. former RA presidents Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan had.
In other words, Azerbaijan tried to prove that the order to take Shushi was given by the military-political leadership of Armenia, so multi-faceted preparatory work was done.
Moreover, a video was put to study in the court of Baku, where the former president of RA Serzh Sargsyan talks about the importance of the Shushi operation, and where, in particular, according to the Azerbaijani media, Serzh Sargsyan says: “The significance of the Shushi operation was so great that Robert Kocharian also personally participated in it.”
And in the multi-part film about Shushi’s liberation, Serzh Sargsyan’s interview was also included, where he tells. “In April 1992, a desperate situation was created, not to attack Shushi, not to capture Shushi, meant to sentence the population of Karabakh, and first of all, to Stepanakert, to a slow death, because at least 300-350 rockets were coming from Shushi to Stepanakert every day, it got to the point that an ordinary small-arms ball from Shushi was available to Stepanakert residents.”
Naturally, they did not talk about these and other reasons in the Baku court.
And now, when Nikol Pashinyan constantly repeats that Artsakh was never ours, it is, in fact, nothing more than the current leadership of Armenia accusing Armenia of being an “occupier”.
In other words, what they tried to prove during the “trial” against the former military-political leadership of Artsakh, which, as we have written many times, is against Armenia globally, not individuals, even if there are such episodes.
—
Zelensky in Yerevan, Pashinyan’s absence from Red Square. new world
May 9, 2026
On the occasion of the 81st anniversary of the victory in the Great Patriotic War, Moscow is not as crowded this year as last year, in the case of events dedicated to the 80th anniversary.
Last year, the President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, the leaders of the CIS countries, the leaders of almost all of Russia’s traditional partner countries, including Nikol Pashinyan, were in Moscow’s Red Square. This year, many people are not in Red Square, including Pashinyan. Nikol Pashinyan will not participate in the Victory Parade to be held in Moscow on May 9 this year. During his last briefing, Pashinyan stated that during his previous visit to Moscow, in April, he told Putin that he would not be in Red Square.
“During my visit to the Russian Federation, I informed the President of the Russian Federation that I will not be able to participate in the May 9 events due to the campaign,” he said. Pashinyan did not specify whether another Armenian official would go to Moscow instead of him or not. However, as the Russian Ambassador to Armenia Sergey Kopirkin announced the other day, Nikol Pashinyan, “among other friendly countries of the Russian Federation”, was invited to the parade in Moscow. Pashinyan participated in the Moscow parade in 2025 and 2023, but missed the 2024 one.
However, yesterday, during the meeting with his Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Moscow had not officially invited anyone to the May 9 celebrations, but announced that it would welcome all potential guests. “We have not officially invited anyone,” Putin said. Lukashenko also emphasized that he was disgusted to see how some neighboring states “threw the Victory under their feet”. He reminded that the Soviet people saved the whole world from the “plague” and that this is “our great treasure”. Lukashenko expressed confidence that world leaders “will ask to come here” soon. “To be in this square,” he added. The President of Belarus arrived in Moscow on the evening of May 8 to participate in the Victory Day celebrations.
According to the Russian media, the presidents of Abkhazia, Badra Gunba of Laos, Tonglun Sisulit of Kazakhstan, Kasim-Jomart Tokayev, Supreme Ruler of Malaysia Sultan Ibrahim, the leadership of the Republic of Serbia headed by President Sinisha Karan, Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fitzo, President of South Ossetia Alan Gagloev and others.
Pashinyan’s absence from the Red Square comes to complete the chain that has emerged in the Armenian-Russian diplomatic-expert-information domain in recent days. The 8th European Political Community Summit held in Armenia, the participation of Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky and his anti-Russian speech were met with great displeasure in the Russian Federation and the Foreign Ministry summoned the RA Ambassador to the Russian Federation, Gurgen Arsenyan, conveying Russia’s displeasure.
“The head of the diplomatic mission was informed about the categorical inadmissibility of providing a pulpit to Vladimir Zelensky, the leader of the Nazi regime in Armenia, to issue terrorist threats against Russia, within the framework of the latest events under the auspices of the EU,” said the message of the Russian Foreign Ministry.
The statement issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry also stated that during the meeting with the RA ambassador, it was emphasized that Moscow is justly upset in this regard and considers the lack of a proper negative assessment by the official Yerevan to be inconsistent with the partnership nature of Russian-Armenian relations.
And although the gap in Armenian-Russian relations is deepening, approaching the crisis point, the RA authorities declare that they maintain strong ties with the Russian Federation.
During the “Yerevan Dialogue” international forum, RA Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan announced that for decades, if not centuries, RA thought that in a hostile environment, RA needs one main friend, a “big brother” who can protect.
“Now this perception has changed, including because when the moment came and we really needed the protection of that bigger friend, it didn’t come, and that greatly changed the perception of foreign policy among ordinary Armenians. I am not even talking about the political elite.
And now we somehow succeeded, and this is exactly what we want, the direction we want to go. we somehow managed to reduce our dependence, be it politically, economically or energetically, we managed to reduce our dependence on one center, our ties to one center, and diversify our list of friends. As you rightly mentioned, we have established a strategic partnership with the United States.
The United States plays a key role in establishing peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The United States plays a key role in the opening of transport infrastructure and communications in the South Caucasus. I’m sure you’ve heard of the TRIPP project, the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, which includes railroads, power grids, internet cables, and perhaps oil and gas pipelines in the future.
It’s all about connectivity, connectivity between Armenia and Azerbaijan, connectivity between Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Georgia and beyond this region: Europe, Central Asia, the Far East. We have established a strategic partnership with the European Union. We have very close relations with India, strategic partnership with China and Kazakhstan, and we still maintain our strong ties with Russia,” commented Mirzoyan.
Thus, Armenian-Russian relations have entered a stage where the usual norms of diplomatic etiquette have been replaced by open demarches and public manifestations of mutual mistrust.
Nikol Pashinyan’s absence from Red Square, citing a “campaign campaign”, and Vladimir Putin’s statement about the lack of official invitations, indicate that the parties are no longer trying to maintain the illusion of a “strategic alliance”. The political gap formed between Moscow and Yerevan today is manifested not only at the ceremonial level, but also by the fundamental clash of geopolitical vectors, where Armenia’s “diversification” policy and the emphasis on Western projects are considered as a direct challenge to Russia’s influence.
The catalyst for deepening the crisis was the summit held in Yerevan with the participation of the President of Ukraine, which became a “red line” for the Kremlin, leading to the summoning of the RA ambassador to the Foreign Ministry and harsh warnings about “categorical inadmissibility”. The ruling elite of Armenia is radically reshaping the security and economic architecture of the country, relying on the Western centers, which, it is not yet known, how they will support Armenia in this transitional phase, if this foreign policy of Armenia continues.
As a result, Armenian-Russian relations today have reached a point where assurances about maintaining “strong ties” simply contradict real political processes. When once-allied countries begin to communicate in the language of “summoning ambassadors”, with diplomatic skirmishes, and the meetings of the top management become a platform for recording differences rather than cooperation, it becomes obvious that the former model no longer exists.
—
Pashinyan was forced… Armenia will become a sacrificial tool. Hayk Nahapetyan
May 9, 2026
The Armenian people should remember that in May 1994, they defeated Azerbaijan, which unleashed a war against us, and forced it to sign a ceasefire document on our terms, which means that we had and have the potential to speak with Azerbaijan in the victorious language of force if necessary. About this 168 TVof Revue mentioned on the air of the program Colonel of the reserve forces of the RA Armed Forces, military expert Hayk Nahapetyantalking about the May trinity.
The colonel emphasizes that we did not lose the war, but the big battle, which actually started on September 27, 2020 and ended on September 19-20, 2023, when Azerbaijan completely occupied and depopulated Artsakh.
Speaking about the European summits that took place in Yerevan at the beginning of the week, the military expert expressed the opinion that within the framework of the summit of the European Political Community, the heads of states allied to Nazi Germany, which launched a war against the Soviet Union in 1941 and were defeated in 1945, gathered in Armenia.
“And since the leaders of the states that launched a war against the USSR gathered here in Armenia, the authorities of the day felt like they were on a plate. Perhaps there are reasons that this gathering was consistent from that point of view as well, including the warm meeting with Zelensky, and if our grandfathers played an irrevocably big role against that victory, the victory of the Soviet Union was also important for us Armenians, that if the Soviet army was defeated in the Battle of Stalingrad, the Turkish divisions standing on the Armenian-Turkish border would not ask anyone’s opinion to cross the Soviet border and enter the territory of Armenia.
And Turkey was Germany’s ally. And we remember that the vice president of Turkey also came to Yerevan. That’s why I say, the allied states of Nazi Germany were gathering… From here, my next conclusion is that the warmth that Zelensky received in Yerevan may have other grounds and ground, which the Russian media reported the day before that the person holding the position of the Prime Minister of Armenia… so it was implicitly said that he had a moral perception to feel very good at that gathering, considering that his grandfather was captured in the war and then served Nazi Germany. to the penal units, and was killed in 1943.
In other words, it is possible that Pashinyan has motivation, moreover, I consider that motivation to be natural, and in that sense, for example, he can say: “If my grandfather found that the Germans were right, now the time has come for my country to be in an alliance with that country, and I am the leader of the country.” In principle, the context of that program that was broadcast was that. By the way, this fact was mentioned earlier, but why was it remembered now, because it involves the idea that Pashinyan is the successor of his grandfather, that is, Armenia should be in an alliance with the states that are at war with Russia.”
Hayk Nahapetyan lists those countries: Germany, France, Ukraine, Great Britain, Turkey, Azerbaijan, which, according to his prediction, are preparing for war against Russia. Moreover, the military expert believes that Pashinyan does not decide the policy, and he is forced to enter this game.
“There are many things that are not even asked to him. They tell him that it should be done like this, and he has to do it. For example, Azerbaijan says it should be done like this, Turkey says it should be done like this, European countries say it should be done like this, the United States says it should be done like this, Russia says it should be done like this. It speaks about the extent of your independence.
In the past, Armenia was not viewed as a colony or a vassal, but now, unfortunately, Nikol Pashinyan is viewed in that status, that is, Armenia is in the field of those states, and this is the consequence of the created geopolitical situation. As the world is now being re-divided and a new multi-polar world management system is being created, the approaches of the powers that have to make decisions are more strict…
Before, Russia did not say: I am waging an existential war, but now it does. The US president didn’t say: I should be a hegemon in the world, but now he says… The British prime minister and the French president, yes, they forced him. Maybe he wanted to combine the useful with the pleasant,” the military expert thinks.
Hayk Nahapetyan also adds that in the predicted war against Russia, Armenia will become a “sacrificial tool” like the Ukrainian army.
The military expert also noted that during this last meeting between Pashinyan and Putin, the Russian president raised the topic of Artsakh and showed the map of Nagorno Karabakh separately a few days ago on the Russian First channel, is an obvious message, first of all, to the Armenian people.
Hayk Nahapetyan adds to this topic: the four tripartite documents on the Artsakh issue have legal force and mean one thing: the Artsakh issue is open.
“The situation may be such that Turkey’s activity against Russia will rise as a NATO member country, in other words, the Russian-Turkish flirtation remains in the past, real politics is coming, and in that sense, Russia needs a strong, well-armed ally in the south.” Let’s say, as the West armed Belarus with nuclear warheads and “Oreshnik” type missiles, Armenia can become a nuclear power very quickly with the same success, if Russia finds that it is the moment to protect the southern borders with nuclear weapons,” the military expert added.
Full interview in the video.
—
168: Putin announced the possibility of a “soft divorce” with Armenia
May 9, 2026
Armenia’s plans to join the EU require “special consideration”, and Yerevan receives “significant advantages” within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), President Vladimir Putin said, RBC reported.
“This applies to agriculture, this applies to the processing industry, this applies to customs and other fees, etc., etc., this applies to the migration sector,” he clarified.
In his opinion, Armenia should decide as soon as possible whether to participate in the EU or the EAEU, then the path of “soft and intelligent divorce” will be possible.
Putin did not rule out the discussion of the republic’s plans for joining the European Union at the EAEU summit.
“We just need to say in time that we will do this and that. There is nothing special here. Everything must be calculated. And the Armenian side must calculate, and we must calculate,” he said.
The head of state noted that Russians and Armenians have had special relations for centuries, “and if this or that decision is beneficial to the Armenian people, please, we will not be against it.”
—
View of buildings at Republic Square in Armenia
This photo taken on May 6, 2026 shows Central Post Office of Armenia at Republic Square in Yerevan, Armenia. (Xinhua/Chen Junfeng)
This photo taken on May 6, 2026 shows the government building of Armenia at Republic Square in Yerevan, Armenia. (Xinhua/Chen Junfeng)
This photo taken on May 6, 2026 shows the building of the National History Museum of Armenia and National Gallery of Armenia at Republic Square in Yerevan, Armenia. (Xinhua/Chen Junfeng)
—
Preparations underway for one of Fresno’s biggest Armenian festivals
May 9 2026
Preparations underway for one of Fresno’s biggest Armenian festivals
by: Jason Takhtadjian
The 14th annual Armenian Festival returns Saturday from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. with food, live music, and activities planned for the community. The day prior, tables were going up, chairs were being set up, and final preparations were underway for the Armenian Festival at St. Paul Armenian Church on May 9.
“This is the fourteenth annual Armenia Festival of Saint Paul Armenia Church. The preparations take many weeks,” Organizer Vartush Mesropyan said.
Organizer Vartush Mesropyan said there’s a lot that goes into getting ready for an event that regularly attracts more than a thousand people
“Make sure we have the proper music. We have the linens, we have the tablecloths, we have the napkins, we have all the inventory,” Mesropyan said.
The festival will feature live music, dancing, a kids zone, vendors, and plenty of traditional Armenian food.
“We have a combo plate that’s going to be the chicken and the beef kebabs with the pilaf, salad, bread, and cheese boureg, of course,” Mesropyan said.
Organizers are asking people to plan ahead for parking.
“The parking will take place at our large parking lot…people will be able to park next door at the Pilgrim Armenian Congregational Church for additional parking,” Mesropyan said.
And if you can’t stay, organizers said there will also be a drive-thru takeout option available.
“Whoever doesn’t want to dine in, take out, they can just drive through like the drive-thru at Starbucks, pick up their food and go home,” Mesropyan said.
—
Armenia’s Constitutional Debate and the Regional Balance of Power
Armenia’s constitutional debate is increasingly intersecting with regional power dynamics, as shifts in governance models and legal frameworks signal the country’s strategic orientation between actors such as Russia, the European Union, and neighboring Turkey. Far from being a purely domestic reform process, constitutional changes carry implications for security alliances, conflict-resolution mechanisms, and the broader balance of influence in the South Caucasus. As such, the outcome of this debate may redefine not only Armenia’s internal political order, but also its role within a rapidly evolving regional geopolitical architecture.
Armenia adopted its first Constitution in 1995, establishing a presidential system. Reforms in 2005 introduced a semi-presidential model, while the 2015 Constitution completed the transition to a parliamentary system, significantly reshaping the country’s political structure. Following the 2018 revolution, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan pledged constitutional amendments, calling the system “super-prime-ministerial.” However, the issue was later deprioritized amid shifting political developments, before re-emerging in the context of the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process and the initialing of a Washington-brokered agreement.
Official Baku insists that constitutional change is a precondition for a peace treaty. President Ilham Aliyev argues that Armenia must remove references in the Constitution’s preamble that, in his view, imply territorial claims over Nagorno-Karabakh and support unification narratives. The preamble itself refers to Armenia’s Declaration of Independence, which is based on the December 1, 1989, joint decision of the Armenian SSR Supreme Council and the Nagorno-Karabakh National Council on “reunification.” It also commits Armenia to supporting international recognition of the 1915 Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire and Western Armenia.
Baku demands the removal of any reference to the Declaration of Independence. At the same time, Yerevan states that the Washington-initialed peace draft includes mutual recognition of no territorial claims and a commitment that domestic law cannot be used to avoid treaty obligations. It also emphasizes that constitutional change is an internal matter. Pashinyan has separately stated that his political force supports removing references to the Declaration of Independence in a new Constitution, describing it not as a declaration of independence but as one of conflict and dependence.
Authorities plan to hold a constitutional referendum after parliamentary elections, though no date has been set. The draft must first pass parliament with a two-thirds majority. According to the Justice Ministry, the draft is complete and under ruling-party review and does not include a preamble referencing the Declaration.
The key question remains whether the referendum will pass and proceed without obstacles. The U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in its declassified 2026 “Annual Threat Assessment,” also noted that the outcome is uncertain due to potential challenges. Pashinyan has further stated that if the referendum fails, a second vote may be held. Opposition figures and analysts argue the reforms are driven by pressure from Baku and Ankara to remove references to Nagorno-Karabakh and genocide recognition, while the government maintains that constitutional decisions rest solely with the Armenian people.
Against this backdrop, constitutional reforms have become closely linked to efforts to finalize a peace agreement, normalize relations, and redefine Armenia’s position within the regional order. This article examines their implications for the balance of power and long-term stability in the South Caucasus, assessing what this could mean not only for Armenia’s domestic political trajectory, but also for the viability of the peace process and the credibility of externally mediated agreements. From a regional perspective, what impact could the adoption or rejection of Armenia’s new Constitution have? Could failure to approve the draft affect the authorities’ broader regional peace agenda? We sought answers from Armenian expert circles.
Constitutional Uncertainty and Its Impact on the Peace Process
Robert Ghevondyan, a political expert at the ‘Armenian Council’ Analytical Center, said in a conversation with us that if the new Constitution is adopted, it will not include a preamble.This would leave Azerbaijan with no grounds to delay signing the Peace Agreement. As a result, the agreement is expected to be signed, which could also pave the way for progress in other areas.
According to Robert Ghevondyan, the primary direction is the unblocking of infrastructure. It is expected that this will lead to the reopening of transport routes across the region, which would have a tremendous impact on unlocking economic potential. On the other hand, Robert Ghevondyan points to two key conditions for the adoption of the Constitution, both of which appear unlikely to be met, though there remains some possibility.
“The first is securing a constitutional majority in the National Assembly elections—either by the ruling Civil Contract party on its own or in agreement with another political force—so that they can put the issue to a referendum. The second, if that hurdle is overcome, is the referendum per se. During the referendum, it would be necessary to gather around 622,000 votes from those eligible to vote in the June 7 elections, which is also a fairly difficult task—especially given that there will be significant opposition to the adoption of the new Constitution. In my assessment, the chances of the new Constitution being adopted or failing are roughly equal—about 50/50. If the new Constitution does not pass, the processes will most likely continue, but they will proceed much more slowly and with a greater degree of unpredictability”.
Ghevondyan also noted that during the recent bilateral roundtable discussions held in Azerbaijan from April 10 to 12, within the framework of the ‘Bridge of Peace’ initiative and with the participation of civil society representatives from both Azerbaijan and Armenia—discussions in which he also took part—the question was raised as to what Azerbaijan’s approach would be, and how it would prefer to proceed, if the Constitution were not adopted in any way, whether it was not put to a referendum or failed to pass.
“The Azerbaijani participants expressed the view—though this is still just an opinion, not a final decision—that in such a case the Peace Agreement would likely not be signed. However, efforts would be made to advance processes in various areas even without signing the agreement. In other words, there would be some progress on the points already outlined, which means that even in the event of failure, there would still be slow but tangible progress,” the political analyst noted.
As for the likelihood that the Prime Minister of Armenia might put the constitutional referendum to a vote multiple times, the political analyst believes that, procedurally, this would not be so easy for the state. Securing the required two-thirds of the vote each time would be challenging—regardless of whether the ruling Civil Contract party holds that majority on its own or together with another political force. “To form a government, 51 percent is sufficient—that is, they may together have 51 percent. However, when it comes to putting the issue to a referendum, they would need to reach an agreement with another political party. And each time—the second, third, and so on—they would inevitably have to pay some political price in return for doing so. This will be quite difficult.”
And the next obstacle, according to the political analyst, is that the process is quite costly and burdensome for the state in terms of financial and organizational resources.
“The ruling Civil Contract party may choose to pursue this, but regardless of how many times the issue is put to a referendum, the probability will not change. Each time, I assess the chances as 50/50,” the political analyst concluded.
Referendum Risks and the Constitutional Dimension of Regional Negotiations
Our second interlocutor, Gevorg Danielyan—Professor, Head of the Chair of Constitutional Law at Yerevan State University, Advisor to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia, and former member of the Constitutional Reforms Committee—is convinced that, first and foremost, Armenian society is largely not inclined to accept the view that the authorities have adopted a genuine peace agenda. According to Danielyan, it is more than evident that the political force in power is simply seeking to reproduce itself and remain in office by accommodating the ever-growing demands of Azerbaijan and Turkey—even at the cost of conceding territories, weakening the pillars of national identity, and initiating a campaign against the Armenian Church.
“Linking the entire saga of adopting the Constitution to the peace process is a misguided approach and may, in fact, do more harm than good to that process,” Gevorg Danielyan argues. In response to our question about possible scenarios in the event of a failed referendum (including the prospect of a repeated vote), and what this could mean not only for Armenia’s internal situation but also for the viability of the peace process and the credibility of internationally mediated agreements, Professor Danielyan noted: “First of all, no such agreement has actually been signed; these are merely initialed documents with no legal force. Unfortunately, this clear reality is consistently being ignored by the Armenian authorities, without a proper assessment of the potentially disastrous consequences. I have stated as early as four years ago that the referendum is doomed to fail from the outset. More recently, the intelligence community of the United States—the mediating side—also clearly expressed doubts about the feasibility of the Azerbaijani demand.
The issue is not only the open antipathy toward the unpopular Constitution, but also the fact that the required turnout threshold for the referendum is at least 50 percent of eligible voters. However, due to widespread political apathy, this threshold has never been reached in recent nationwide elections. Moreover, in the 2023 Yerevan City Council elections—where a significant portion of the population is concentrated—voter turnout was only 28.4 percent. Furthermore, the authorities cannot artificially boost turnout by scheduling the referendum on the same day as nationwide elections, as this is prohibited by law”, Professor Danielyan notes. When asked about what Armenia would gain or lose if the reference to the Declaration of Independence were removed from the Constitution, Gevorg Danielyan believes that adopting a new Constitution with such wording—a scenario he considers virtually zero probability—would inevitably lead to a reduction of Armenia’s sovereignty and, in the near future, even to the complete loss of statehood. “That is not a guarantee of peace; rather, as I noted, it will whet appetites and bring to life other already circulating demands, including plans to regard Armenia as ‘Western Azerbaijan’ and, at the initial stage at least, to settle it with around 300,000 Azerbaijanis.”
According to Gevorg Danielyan, the Armenian authorities have, either intentionally or unintentionally, initiated a process that leads to an inevitable deadlock and trap, since if the Constitution is not adopted, Armenia could be characterized as a state that, by virtue of its Constitution, holds territorial claims against a neighboring country. “Unfortunately, these perceptions were also reinforced by the Constitutional Court, as it did not attempt to properly assess the Constitution’s preamble referencing the Declaration of Independence and confirm that it contains no provisions establishing territorial claims. Instead, it advanced the highly controversial thesis that the preamble allegedly has no normative character and therefore cannot produce legal consequences. Even the most basic truth was overlooked—namely, that the preamble is intended to reveal the true intent of the constitution-maker, which is of crucial importance for interpretation. Even the fact was overlooked that the reference was not made to all provisions of the Declaration, but solely to ‘the fundamental principles of Armenian statehood and the national objectives enshrined therein. Ultimately, the Declaration refers solely to the respect for the people’s right to self-determination, which is a well-established principle of international law,” Danielyan notes.
Gevorg Danielyan is confident that, from the outset, by yielding to unfounded Azerbaijani demands, the current Armenian authorities have adopted a policy of presenting them as supposedly justified based on their own narrative and, in turn, implementing them. In his view, this is a direct path leading into a trap. “Accordingly, it is necessary to be guided not by the publicly stated and often changing positions of officials, but by legally binding international treaties, and the Azerbaijani side cannot fail to take this undeniable reality into account,” the constitutional lawyer concludes.
Controversy Over Historical and Territorial References in the Declaration of Independence
Our third interlocutor, political commentator and coordinator of the ANI Armenian Research Center, Tatul Hakobyan, believes that Armenia has made a grave mistake by linking its internal procedures—namely the adoption, amendment, and voting on the Constitution—to the Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process. In his view, Armenia has, in effect, given a commitment to Azerbaijan to amend its Constitution, specifically by removing the reference to the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution’s preamble.
“And if the referendum is not adopted in Armenia—and there is a high likelihood that many people will go and vote against it—I believe this could give Azerbaijan grounds to accuse Armenia of maintaining territorial claims against it and, why not, to attempt a partial incursion into the territory of the Republic of Armenia by using this as a pretext. I am not saying this will happen, but I also do not rule out the possibility that Azerbaijan may try to exploit such a situation,” the political analyst warns. Tatul Hakobyan does not rule out the possibility of a repeated vote or any other procedures, because, in his view, the current Armenian authorities have decided to normalize Armenia–Azerbaijan relations by all means and at any cost. He adds that, in addition to removing the reference to the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution’s preamble, they may also take other steps and could even push it through using falsifications.
“I cannot say in advance that there will be fraud, but I repeat that the stakes are so high that I do not rule out the possibility of it being carried out through falsification. First, we need to see how these elections conclude, and only then will things become clear. After all, people also grow tired of participating in so many elections, and amid a day-by-day decline in the authorities’ approval ratings, holding yet another referendum—which is being conducted exclusively at Azerbaijan’s demand—is significant. However much the authorities may use different wording, the fact remains that it is being done at Azerbaijan’s request. I also do not rule out that Armenian citizens may say ‘no’ simply because it is Azerbaijan’s demand, without even delving deeply into the substance,” Tatul Hakobyan believes.
Tatul Hakobyan recalls that he has been among those who have consistently stated that including historical claims and territorial demands in the Declaration of Independence was a mistake, and he maintains that Armenia made an error in 1990. “In fact, it is a demand, because you are putting history into a legal document, namely, you are referring to the Armenian Genocide, to Western Armenia, and moreover, to the 1989 decision to reunify the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (Artsakh) and Armenia. I consider that to have been a political mistake, which is working against Armenia. Therefore, I do not believe that if the people vote in favor of it, Armenia would suffer major losses as a result, because, as I repeat, this is a provision that should not have been included so that it would not be removed now,” political commentator concludes.
Looking Ahead
In conclusion, Armenia’s constitutional debate has moved well beyond a purely domestic legal reform and now sits at the intersection of internal politics and regional geopolitics. The proposed changes—particularly those concerning references to the Declaration of Independence—are increasingly viewed not only as constitutional adjustments, but also as elements linked to the broader Armenia–Azerbaijan peace process.
While the authorities present the reform as a sovereign initiative aimed at institutional modernization and normalization of relations, critics argue it risks being shaped by external pressures and becoming politically instrumentalized. At the same time, assessments differ on the consequences of a potential referendum failure, ranging from slowed reform momentum to increased uncertainty in the regional peace framework.
Ultimately, the constitutional process has gained significance far beyond its legal scope. It has become a test of political consensus, public trust, and Armenia’s strategic orientation. The outcome of a future referendum will therefore carry implications not only for domestic governance, but also for the credibility and stability of the evolving peace architecture in the South Caucasus.
Contributed by Anna Vardanyan, an Armenian political journalist and researcher with over 18 years’ experience in defence policy, international relations, and security in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, has worked for Armenian media and held advisory roles in the National Assembly of Armenia.
—
Dispute over return puts a strain on the peace process in Nagorno-Karabakh
The conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and the demand for the return of the displaced population are not leaving Armenia in peace. Swiss politicians are also discussing these sensitive issues.
The fronts in the South Caucasian state are hardened: While some fear that a return of the displaced people could jeopardize the peace process between Armenia and Azerbaijan, others believe that the peace process is doomed to failure without the inclusion of the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians.
“We are collateral victims of the conflict between Russia and the West,” says Artak Beglaryan, referring to the displaced population from Nagorno-Karabakh. He left his homeland in September 2023 along with around 100,000 other Armenians.
Since then, as president of the non-governmental organization “Artsakh Union”, he has been campaigning for the return of the displaced population to their homeland, as he said in an interview with the Keystone-SDA news agency in Yerevan. Nagorno-Karabakh is also known as Artsakh in Armenia.
The population was displaced by the Azerbaijani military, which brought the region under the control of Baku. Nagorno-Karabakh has always been Azerbaijani territory and was populated by a majority of Armenians until 2023.
“According to the last census conducted in 1987, 184,000 people lived in Nagorno-Karabakh, 142,000 of whom were Armenians and 42,000 Azerbaijanis,” says Roman Karapetyan, a political scientist at Yerevan State University. More recent reliable figures are not available.
Peace process does not provide for return
The government in Yerevan is offering the displaced population a settlement program in Armenia. This includes obtaining an Armenian passport and financial aid. “The money is enough for a family to buy a house,” says Karapetyan. Around 40,000 people have already made use of this.
At the same time, the Armenian and Azerbaijani governments are trying to normalize relations. In August 2025, they signed a joint declaration in Washington under the aegis of US President Donald Trump with the aim of achieving peace. A possible return of the displaced population is not mentioned in the declaration.
Process does not bring “real peace”
“The people of Nagorno-Karabakh are not part of the discussion and are suffering,” says Armine Aleksanyan, a former diplomat for the Republic of Artsakh. The current peace process is being imposed and cannot be described as “real peace”. “It will be difficult to talk meaningfully about such a ‘peace’,” adds Aleksanyan, who was recently in Switzerland.
At the end of April, she met Swiss members of parliament from the “Swiss Peace Initiative for Nagorno-Karabakh” committee, who are campaigning for her cause, at the Federal Palace. The committee is calling on the Federal Council to organize an international peace forum with Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians to negotiate the return of the displaced population.
The committee’s demand is based on a mandate given to the government by parliament in March 2025. “The initiative was good and urged the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs to act,” says National Councillor Stefan Müller-Altermatt (center/SO), who is also a member of the committee. “In concrete terms, however, the peace initiative has still achieved too little.”
Return is “the most sensitive issue”
Both the government in Baku and that in Yerevan do not want to know anything about a forum for the return of the displaced population, as they have already communicated several times. “To have a discussion, you have to be in pairs,” said President Guy Parmelin earlier this week on the sidelines of a European summit in Yerevan.
The meeting of the European Political Community (EPC) was hosted by the Armenian government. All European states except Russia and Belarus were invited, as well as the heads of international organizations such as the EU.
The return is “the most sensitive issue”, said an EU official in Brussels, speaking on condition of anonymity before the summit. The EU would rather not talk about it, he continued.
“The West does not want to talk about our return because it fears that it could jeopardize the peace process,” said Beglaryan. “But peace is only possible through a just, inclusive and sustainable solution.”
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev was of a different opinion at the summit. He condemned a resolution recently passed by the European Parliament. It would “sabotage” the process, he said in his speech.
In the resolution, the Parliament reiterated its support for the rights of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh, including their right to a “safe, unhindered and dignified return”.
Nagorno-Karabakh is an issue in the election campaign
Thanks to the resolution from Brussels and the work of the committee in Bern, the issue remains on the agenda, says Beglaryan. It is therefore an issue in the current election campaign in Armenia.
Parliamentary elections will be held in the South Caucasian state on June 7. While the incumbent Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan avoids the topic of Nagorno-Karabakh, opposition candidates are taking it up in the election campaign, according to the observer Karapetyan, but sometimes without making concrete commitments.
—