March: 16, 2026
Robert Kocharyan is the prime minister candidate of the “Armenia” bloc. Anna Grigoryan, deputy of the “Hayastan” faction, announced about this a little while ago.
To remind, the second president of Armenia, Robert Kocharyan and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, which was joined by the “Forward” party, will participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections together under the “Armenia” bloc.
—
Now it is about the survival of Iran and neighboring countries, including Armenia. A:
March: 16, 2026
168TVof “Trigger” the guest of the program Russian political scientist, doctor of historical sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences Ye. Alexander Krylov is a senior researcher at the Caucasus Department of the Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations.:
During the program, we discuss a number of current topics, for example, the projects of analysis of Armenian-Turkish history textbooks implemented with the support of Western foundations and the possible impact of such initiatives on the historical policy and educational system of Armenia, research on the formation of public opinion on the issue of the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border and the regulation of relations, the role of international grant programs and their impact on the country’s political discourse.
The campaigns against the Metsamor nuclear power plant and the issue of Armenia’s energy security, as well as the competition between Russia and the USA for the construction of a new nuclear power plant and the technological risks of the proposed projects, were considered separately.
Sociological surveys on trust in key institutions, regional transport and energy projects, security issues in Syunik, the South Azerbaijan factor and possible geopolitical competition around Iran in the South Caucasus are also at the center of the discussion.
Hayk Derzyan
—
168: The Church defeated Pashinyan. WHO WILL WIN THE ELECTIONS? If the young man
March: 16, 2026
Satik Seyranyan in the “Pressing” program the guest is a member of the International Sociological Association (ISA), a member of the Political Sociology Research Committee, a member of the European Sociological Association, director of the “ARAR” Foundation This is Armen Khachikyan։
On March 6, the results of a survey published by the American International Republican Institute, IRI, were published, an 81-page document. The data was collected during the period between February 3-13, 2026, using the telephone survey method. The sample consists of 1,506 RA citizens over 18 years of age, covering three age groups.
With them, the policies implemented by the authorities in various fields, public sentiments, political preferences, etc., were evaluated. According to that, the three structures with the highest level of trust are the armed forces, the Armenian Apostolic Church, and regional governorships.
The respondents, for example, also answered the question whether Armenia is moving in the right or wrong direction. If in the post-revolutionary period of 2018, 73% of the population believed that Armenia is moving in the right direction, then as of February 2026, 47% of the country’s population is of the same opinion.
The issues related to the upcoming parliamentary elections are in the center of attention and discussions in the political field.
The opposition is suspicious of the results of the International Republican Institute survey published three months before the National Assembly elections, while the government is euphoric as if the elections are over and they have already won. In fact, neither the government has a reason to be happy, nor the opposition to be sad and depressed.
About the survey results and other surveys published by the American International Republican Institute, IRI The main theses of the interview with sociologist Armen Khachikyan are below.
- Sociology is not just polls. Public opinion expressed in opinion polls does not necessarily mean that it should be expressed in elections. As a rule of thumb, if a telephone survey is made and 20% of the masses respond, the results may not represent the full picture. Many people shy away from saying who they will vote for. If, for example, I am asked, I will not tell about my political preferences, not because I am afraid, but because it is personal information and can be used against me.
- The survey is conducted among 1000-1500 people. In that survey, percentage combinations related to gender, region, educational census and other factors should be preserved. No response index should be considered. However, the resulting picture may not be identical to the election results because the turnout during elections is different. That is, the sample and a bucket of 1000-1500 borscht do not always reflect the real picture.
- Sociology prompts but does not compel.
- The numbers can be interpreted in many different ways. It can be said that 30% of people in Armenia support Pashinyan, and it can be said that 70% do not. In the same IRI survey, there is a number that the authorities will not like and that they do not talk about…
- Why this research was published late, I cannot say.
- There is an electoral rating and a trust rating. They are different. For example, Gagik Tsarukyan’s rating is high, but when you ask who you will vote for, many people do not see him as the head of the country. According to the results of various researches, the collective opposition forces have a higher electoral rating than Nikol Pashinyan. However, no one knows what temperature, blood pressure or other indicators society will have on June 7, as an organism, so to speak… At this moment, it is not correct to say exactly who will win.
- There are fewer people who are undecided now. A year ago, their number was much higher – 60%, and this is a serious boost and means that the opposition has room to work.
- Unfortunately, the opposition still does not understand and does not realize the general mood of the public. The undecided should be the most targeted segment for the opposition. If instead of 50, 60% participate in the elections, that 10% will most likely vote for the opposition, because the government’s electorate is clearly oriented. The opposition must find its electorate among the undecided. Especially among young people, the degree of apathy, disappointment with politics, with the revolution of 2018 is quite high, because in their opinion, the revolution was a very good thing, they participated, but the result was bad… The opposition should work very seriously with this segment. Apart from that, the society is also disappointed by various failed opposition movements, such as the Salvation of the Motherland, Resistance and Sacred movements, because they came, participated, but did not achieve results…
- In Armenia, the higher the age, the greater the electoral activity. It’s also big among women:
- No matter how much any political force tries to close the issue of Artsakh, the majority of our public does not consider it closed. 2025 according to the results of our survey, 90.1% believe that the loss of Artsakh is temporary, we should strengthen the army and bring back what was lost. Our society has not digested the loss of Artsakh and will definitely not digest it for several years. Moreover, among the youth there is absolute support for the return of the people of Artsakh to Artsakh and the status of Artsakh. The more the Artsakh issue is put on the agenda, the more useful it will be for them. About 30,000 Artsakh citizens emigrated, about 100,000 Artsakh citizens who remained in Armenia, longing for Artsakh in their hearts, are waiting for a political force to come and return them to their homes.:
- On TRIPP, 65% do not believe it will bring peace. Peace is the dream of all of us, but most people don’t believe in that kind of peace.
- The ranking of the Church and the Armenian Army has always been the highest in Armenia. Even after the defeat in the 44-day war, our people treat the army like their child, the Church like their father. After so many attacks by the authorities, after so many campaigns, the ranking of the Church, for one thing, remains very high. Only 3% of the youth view the church negatively. As a result of the anti-church campaign, even the church’s rating did not fall. On the contrary, people began to get to know our church members better, church rules, and became more connected with the Mother Church. In December, feeling that the society does not accept the campaign against the church, the government, seeing that it was affecting his rating, he quite wisely backed off and now attacks are not prioritized:
- A group of Generation Z (Gen Z) asked young people living in the marzas studying in Yerevan, have you seen the video attributed to Saint Arshak by the authorities, and I must say that they are not interested in it at all, they see it as normal that a person can have a private life and feelings.
- Among the youth, Pashinyan has lower sympathy and support than among the middle-aged and elderly.
- The phenomenon of Samvel Karapetyan was very surprising. A businessman and philanthropist who did not take part in the political life of Armenia. But that’s enough, he said, “I will protect the Church in our own way”, he was arrested, and within 2-3 months his rating surpassed all political forces. First of all, it was the result of supporting the Church, now “Strong Armenia” led by him is the second most powerful force in the political field of Armenia. Therefore, Artsakh and the Church continue to be the priority of the Armenian population, and supporting them will always be useful.:
- 2025 Starting from January-February, the support of 2 foreign political actors in Armenia began to increase: USA and Russia. The support of the European Union, on the contrary, decreased. Now the picture is almost the same. The Iranian factor had its impact in connection with his statements regarding Syunik.
- Peace as a political promise is the best, but in my opinion, this peace has no support in Armenia. This is what the survey results show.
- The older people are, the less media literate they are, the more they fall prey to political propaganda, the more politically active and electorally active they are, so in order to achieve results, opposition political forces must work with young people, especially those aged 30-35.
- For the population of Armenia, Azerbaijan continues to be openly perceived as an enemy.
- The 5,000 casualties that we had in the 44-day war could not but have an impact on people’s psychology, and sometimes even people involved with the aggression of the Azerbaijanis say, well, maybe they have changed, it is our child’s fault, let’s not die… And that is natural, no one wants war.
- It is obvious that Samvel Karapetyan has the highest electoral rating in the opposition. The 2nd is the power of Gagik Tsarukyan, the 3rd and 4th are the DOK led by Vardan Ghukasyan and the “Armenia” alliance led by Robert Kocharyan. Polling of votes is a big problem in the elections, so the best option would be for the opposition to act with a united front. 2021 26 powers took part in the election and it is obvious that 20 of them crushed the votes. That danger still exists today.
- I urge women to participate in political processes. It can have a very positive effect:
- Perhaps the election will have other “surgical” interventions. Nikol Pashinyan will probably try to restrain Samvel Karapetyan’s power with legal mechanisms, to prevent him from participating…
- The opposition must understand that these elections will not follow the logic of the previous elections. There will be much more brutal interventions. It is difficult to expect the government with a constitutional majority to open its doors to the opposition through elections.
- In today’s world, anti-rating is almost impossible to reverse. It is obvious that Nikol Pashinyan will have the highest anti-rating after losing power.
- Generation Z is the 11-28-year-olds who know the world with smartphones and gadgets since their birth. They do not care about many things, they are much more individualistic than collective in their thinking, they are more materialistic than idealistic, they would rather not participate in the elections than they will, but all the same, they are patriotic and church-loving. They have great potential to build a better Armenia.
- The opposition should simplify its tools of political propaganda, not campaign like it did in the 1990s, and if it does not have 4% of the vote, it should not participate in the elections.
- I think that today the RPA is going the right way with its position of not participating in the elections.
Details in the video.
—
RFE/RL – Kocharian To Lead Opposition Bloc In June Elections
- Ruzanna Stepanian
Armenia’s former President Robert Kocharian will take part in the parliamentary elections scheduled for June 7 as the leader of the Hayastan Alliance and its candidate for prime minister.
The announcement was made on Monday evening in Yerevan by Anna Grigorian, a lawmaker representing the alliance in the current parliament, during an event held at the Karen Demirchian Sports and Concert Complex.
The Hayastan Alliance will comprise the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun), a longstanding ally of Kocharian, and the Forward Party, whose leader finished second as the candidate of an alliance of opposition parties in last fall’s hotly contested municipal elections in Armenia’s Vagharshapat community.
“We are determined. Our goal is victory,” Kocharian said in his speech, expressing confidence that “the current government, which embodies evil, will be defeated.”
Hayastan, led by Kocharian, came in a distant second with 21 percent of the vote in the last parliamentary elections held in 2021. The ex-president has given several indications in recent months that he intended once again to top his alliance’s list of candidates in Armenia’s upcoming elections.
At a press conference in late January, Kocharian, who served as Armenia’s president for two consecutive five-year terms from 1998 to 2008, said: “As a leader capable of achieving quite serious successes in crisis situations and who has done it twice, I can do it a third time.”
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian has expressed confidence that his ruling Civil Contract party will retain its parliamentary majority after the June 7 vote.
After visiting the southern provinces of Syunik and Vayots Dzor over the weekend as part of his ruling Civil Contract party’s regular regional tours, Pashinian said it is “quite realistic” for his party to secure a constitutional majority in the next parliament.
According to a poll conducted in February by the International Republican Institute, 24 percent of voters in Armenia would vote for Pashinian’s party if elections were held next Sunday.
The poll showed that the Strong Armenia Party, led by Russian-Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetian, would come second with 9 percent. Kocharian’s Hayastan Alliance and the bloc led by wealthy businessman Gagik Tsarukian were tied for third place with 3 percent each.
The same survey also found that about 30 percent of voters in Armenia remain undecided.
—
Ter-Petrosian’s Party Eyes Alliance With Karapetian’s ‘Strong Armenia’
- Narine Ghalechian
Former President Levon Ter-Petrosian’s Armenian National Congress (HAK) has signaled its readiness to start a “process of consolidation” with billionaire Samvel Karapetian’s political party ahead of upcoming parliamentary elections.
In a speech to participants at the HAK’s March 14 convention, Ter-Petrosian’s close ally Levon Zurabian said the HAK is prepared to take concrete steps toward uniting opposition groups, singling out cooperation with Karapetian’s Strong Armenia party.
“It is necessary to unite all influential democratic, rational, realistic political forces. Therefore, we declare that for that purpose we are ready to begin the consolidation process together with the Strong Armenia party and other opposition forces,” Zurabian, the HAK’s deputy chairman and candidate for prime minister in the upcoming elections, said.
Zurabian’s remarks came two weeks after Ter-Petrosian praised Karapetian, effectively endorsing him ahead of Armenia’s June 7 parliamentary elections.
The 81-year-old former president, who led Armenia to independence in 1991, told media in late February that only the Russian-Armenian tycoon can unite the “fragmented opposition” ahead of the elections.
“One must finally understand that the unification of the opposition is not a political issue but simply a matter of saving the nation,” he said.
Ter-Petrosian did not attend the weekend convention of his extra-parliamentary party, but in his address read out to its delegates he shared his “feeling” that “if the opposition wins the upcoming elections, a major overhaul will really take place in our country.”
Strong Armenia is an offshoot of the Mer Dzevov (In Our Way) movement, which Karapetian launched in late August, two months after he was arrested and prosecuted following strong criticism of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian’s efforts to depose the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church, Catholicos Garegin II.
Karapetian was initially taken into custody for what law-enforcement authorities claimed was a call for a violent overthrow of the government. Later, he was also charged with tax evasion, fraud and money laundering. The businessman rejects all charges as politically motivated.
The new party led by Karapetian is expected to be one of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian’s main challengers in the upcoming elections.
Strong Armenia has announced that Karapetian, who is currently under house arrest, will be its candidate for prime minister. Under the Armenian Constitution, however, Karapetian cannot become prime minister because of his dual Russian citizenship. His party said last month that it will try to remove this constitutional hurdle if it wins the elections.
“Ter-Petrosian is trying to contribute to [opposition] consolidation by assuming a supra-party posturing, but in our election campaign, naturally, we are presenting our own program, and we are confident that no one will implement it better than us,” Zurabian explained.
“It’s another thing that Ter-Petrosian believes, and perhaps rightly so, that Samvel Karapetian can do the consolidation work better,” he added.
Strong Armenia did not immediately respond to the HAK’s call. Speaking at the convention, Artur Mikayelian, a representative of Karapetian’s political party, expressed gratitude to all extra-parliamentary forces “who share the belief that they will win not by competition, but by unity.”
“Armenia has strength. Armenia has potential. Armenia has worthy people. What we need is not a hero, but consolidation, not a miracle, but will and the right direction. We are on that path. And that path will be twice as steady if we go along it together,” he said.
Representatives of several other opposition parties, including Edmon Marukian’s Bright Armenia, attended the HAK convention as guests. Marukian also spoke in favor of opposition consolidation ahead of the elections.
Pashinian has accused Karapetian and some other opposition groups of promoting Moscow’s agenda, while also expressing confidence that his ruling Civil Contract party will score another resounding victory in the forthcoming elections.
—
RFE/RL – Armenian Minister Says Text Of New Draft Constitution ‘Ready’
An Armenian body tasked with constitutional reform has completed drafting the text of a new basic law, Justice Minister Srbuhi Galian said on Monday.
Speaking during the first session of the Public Council operating under her office, Galian said the document will first be discussed by the board and parliamentary faction of the ruling Civil Contract party before any decision is made on its publication.
“The Constitutional Reforms Council is working very actively. We convene sessions every week. And the text is already ready, as I promised,” Galian said. “But I have no news yet regarding its publication, because it has been decided to discuss the text also at the Civil Contract party board and in the faction. After that, a decision will be made regarding the publication of the text.”
It remains unclear whether the draft constitution retains a reference to Armenia’s 1990 Declaration of Independence in its preamble. Azerbaijan has argued that the current reference to the declaration in Armenia’s constitution amounts to a territorial claim to Nagorno-Karabakh, a region that was predominantly populated by ethnic Armenians and remained outside Baku’s control for decades until Azerbaijan completed its military takeover in 2023, triggering an exodus of the local Armenian population.
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian spoke in favor of removing it about a year ago and has recently reaffirmed that stance.
“There should be no reference to the Declaration of Independence in the new Constitution,” Pashinian said. “Let me tell you why: because the Declaration of Independence is built on the logic of conflict. We cannot follow the logic of conflict if we want to build an independent state.”
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly said that Baku will not sign an Armenian-Azerbaijani peace treaty, initialed last August, unless Armenia removes the reference from its constitution. Under Armenian law, doing so would require adopting a new constitution through a referendum.
Pashinian previously said that the new constitution would be put to a referendum after Armenia’s parliamentary elections scheduled for June 7.
In a video message posted on Facebook on Friday Pashinian said his ruling Civil Contract party is “the only political force that says there must be no reference to the Declaration of Independence in the new Constitution.” This suggests that the referendum will not take place if Pashinian and his party are voted out of office.
Armenian opposition groups have pledged to block the constitutional change sought by Pashinian, arguing that his unilateral concessions encourage further demands from Azerbaijan and will not bring lasting peace.
—
California Courier Online, March 16, 2026
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan committed, last week, the sin of attacking the clergy of the Armenian Apostolic Church and his domestic political opponents before the European Parliament. Regardless of internal disputes, it is unacceptable for the head of the Armenian government to disparage his people to a foreign audience. He should not disseminate outside of Armenia his feuds with local opponents.
Pashinyan began his remarks in Strasbourg on March 11 by praising himself for making “such changes in Armenia and in the South Caucasus in general, which have a century-long, if not a millennium-long significance.” In reality, his constant concessions to Aliyev and Erdogan have brought Armenia to its knees.
He then spoke of a non-existent “complete peace” with Azerbaijan, well before any peace treaty was signed.
Pashinyan repeated another false claim about a road crossing Armenia, linking Eastern Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan. This so-called “Trump Path” (TRIPP) was included in the memorandum signed on August 8 at the White House by Pashinyan, Aliyev, and Trump. The memorandum described TRIPP as an “unobstructed” path through Armenia which was done at the demand of Aliyev, who calls this road a “corridor,” implying that the Armenian territory it crosses belongs to Azerbaijan.
Although the Prime Minister is harming the country, he portrayed himself as Armenia’s savior, claiming that “in the months of March-April 2024 we had reached the brink of Armenian statehood, and if in April 2024 we had not made a decision to launch the demarcation process with Azerbaijan, the Republic of Armenia would today not be an independent state, but at most a territory under foreign rule.” This claim is delusional and detached from reality.
Pashinyan then claimed, “And how did we solve the problem? We talked to our employer, the people.” In fact, since promising to consult the public in spring 2018, Pashinyan has never sought the people’s opinion. He makes all governmental decisions alone, bypassing the government’s ministers, Parliament, and the President. The country has become a one-man show — a de facto dictatorship.
Pashinyan denied “that the Armenian government is restricting freedom of conscience, that a dictatorship is being established in Armenia, that there are political prisoners in Armenia.” All three statements are facts, despite his denials. He blamed the “de facto head of our church…, the emissaries of the clergy, and representatives of certain lobbying organizations affiliated with them.” Actually, the clergy and opposition groups are attempting to make a last-ditch effort to save the country from his destructive policies.
Ironically, Pashinyan speaks of the rule of law while violating just about every law as well as the constitution by meddling in the Church’s internal affairs. He wants to decide who should be the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church and what the clergy can say in their sermons. He has accused clergy members of being foreign agents, without a shred of evidence. If true, the government would have taken legal action.
Near the end of his 26-minute speech, Pashinyan referred to “Karabagh” Armenians disparagingly, claiming that they are being given “false hopes.” Contrary to his defeatism, Artsakh Armenians hope to return to their homeland when circumstances allow. He also asserted that Artsakh Armenians “must receive Republic of Armenia citizenship,” despite being citizens of Armenia and possessing passports of the Republic of Armenia. Pashinyan is rejecting their Armenian citizenship to prevent them from voting against him in next June’s parliamentary elections.
To deflect from his failure to secure the release of the Artsakh leaders held in Baku, he cited four Armenian prisoners released in January by Azerbaijan. He did not disclose that they were exchanged for two Syrian Jihadist mercenaries who had been serving life sentences in Armenia after their capture in the 2020 war, while fighting for Azerbaijan.
In 2019, when Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan addressed the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), I wrote a commentary commending him for his speech and particularly his spontaneous answers to members’ questions. My commentary was titled, “Pashinyan passes first political test in the international arena.”
A few days later, Pashinyan shared my commentary on his Facebook page, after adding the following introductory note: “I am happy that one of the most prestigious newspapers of the Diaspora, ‘The California Courier,’ has appreciated in this way my speech at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).” His post received 3,900 likes, 181 comments, and 195 shares.
Months later, when I visited Armenia, the Prime Minister received me in his office. During our hour-long meeting, we discussed the critical issues facing Armenia, as I have done with all previous leaders of Armenia.
Given Pashinyan’s zero tolerance for criticism, I doubt he will share my new commentary on his Facebook page, let alone express his appreciation.
AP reported that the Israeli strike hit an apartment in the Nabaa neighborhood, leaving it engulfed in flames. Nabaa, on Beirut’s northern outskirts within the densely populated Burj Hammoud district, is home to a sizable Armenian community.
No casualties were immediately reported.
Local authorities reported that Israeli airstrikes had earlier targeted the southwestern suburbs of Beirut, killing one person in Jnah.
Israel says it is targeting Hezbollah members and infrastructure.
Israel began a military campaign targeting Hezbollah after the U.S. and Israel launched their war on Iran, which prompted Hezbollah to target Israel. Lebanese authorities say that nearly 690 people have been killed in the attacks.
We, the undersigned, express deep concern over recent and troubling developments at the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute (AGMI) in Yerevan. On March 11, 2026, Dr. Edita Gzoyan, one of the most outstanding and dedicated directors in the history of the institute, submitted her resignation — reportedly under pressure from the government rather than by free choice.
Dr. Gzoyan elevated the AGMI to international academic prominence. Under her leadership, the institute expanded its archival collections, organized key symposia and conferences, and produced scholarly works that significantly advanced genocide studies worldwide. She has been a tireless advocate for rigorous historical research on the Armenian Genocide and related atrocities against Armenians — work that has strengthened global understanding of past injustices and supported the cause of historical truth.
What makes her forced departure particularly alarming is its timing and context. Just weeks earlier, Dr. Gzoyan personally guided U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance during his visit to the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial Complex. She highlighted not only the genocide of 1915 but also later massacres of Armenians in Sumgait, Kirovabad, and Baku, underscoring the historical continuity of anti-Armenian violence in the region. She also presented Vice President Vance with scholarly works on the Armenian Genocide and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict — essential context for understanding Armenia’s history and contemporary challenges. On March 12, responding to a journalist’s question regarding the forced resignation of Dr. Edita Gzoyan, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said: “I was the one who asked the director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute to submit a resignation letter; it was done on my instruction. I considered giving a book about Artsakh to Vance to be a provocative act that goes against the Government’s policy.”
The sequence of events indicates a broader and deeply troubling pattern: the silencing of independent academic voices in favor of political convenience. There is every reason to believe that this is less about museum administration and more about repositioning AGMI to align its work with geopolitical priorities — especially a desire to avoid honest discussion of atrocities related to Azerbaijan amid ongoing normalization efforts.
The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute is not merely a tourist site. It is a center of historical memory and scholarship — a bulwark against denial and distortion. Its leadership should be protected from political interference, not subjected to it. Dr. Gzoyan’s forced exit sends a chilling message to academics and historians everywhere: that rigorous inquiry and truthful remembrance can be displaced for diplomatic comfort.
All of us have been actively engaged with AGMI in numerous meaningful capacities — participating in its conferences, serving on the editorial board of the International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies and on the academic board, collaborating with AGMI staff on joint scholarly initiatives, and contributing to the field through the publication of academic articles and books. Gzoyan has played a key role in involving us in AGMI’s activities through her creative vision and outstanding scholarship, helping shape the Institute’s future.
We believe that any attempt to remove Dr. Gzoyan from the directorship of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute (AGMI) would seriously jeopardize the Institute’s future and undermine its standing within the international scholarly community. Such a decision would not only disrupt the institute’s ongoing work but would also send a deeply troubling signal to leading scholars of genocide studies worldwide, discouraging them from collaborating with AGMI and weakening the global academic partnerships that are essential to its mission.
For these reasons, we strongly urge the Armenian government to refrain from interfering in the leadership of the Institute. We call on the authorities to respect the independence of AGMI and to ensure that Dr. Gzoyan is allowed to continue her work without political pressure or intervention. Protecting the Institute’s autonomy and leadership is critical for preserving its credibility, safeguarding its scholarly mission and maintaining the trust of the international academic community. We believe that directorship of the AGMI should be based on the qualities of the individual as a scholar and administrator and not the political expedience of any particular administration.
AGMI staff and board members have expressed their full confidence in Dr. Gzoyan’s exceptional leadership. We firmly demand that Dr. Gzoyan be reinstated immediately and allowed to continue the outstanding work she has been leading.
Prof. Bedross Der Matossian, professor of history, Hymen Rosenberg Professor in Judaic Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Prof. Elyse Semerdjian, Robert Aram, Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marian Mugar Chair of Armenian Genocide studies at the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Clark University.
Prof. Armen Marsoobian, professor of philosophy, Southern Connecticut State University
Prof. Keith Watenpaugh, professor of human rights studies, University of California, Davis
Prof. Melanie Schulze Tanielian, associate professor of history, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Dr. Simon Maghakyan, associate member of the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Oxford
Dr. Boris Adjemian, Director of Bibliothèque Nubar de l’UGAB
Marc Mamigonian, Director of Academic Affairs, National Association for Armenian Genocide and Research (NAASR)
Prof. Vahé Tachjian, Houshamadyan, Berlin / Ara Hrechdakian Chair of Armenian Studies at Saint Joseph University of Beirut
Prof. Houri Berberian, professor of history, Meghrouni Family Presidential Chair in Armenian Studies University of California, Irvine
Prof. Henry Theriault, Ph.D., Vice-Chair, Board of Directors, National Association for Armenian Studies and Research, and Co-Editor, Genocide Studies International
Prof. Ronald Grigor Suny, William H. Sewell Jr. Distinguished University professor of history emeritus, The University of Michigan; Professor of Political Science and History emeritus, The University of Chicago
Prof. Barlow Der Mugrdechian, Haig and Isabel Berberian Coordinator of Armenian Studies, California State University, Fresno
Prof. Lori Khatchadourian, associate professor, Departments of Near Eastern Studies & Anthropology, Cornell University
Dr. Hilmar Kaiser, Universität Bern
Michael Bobelian, adjunct professor at Columbia University and Baruch College
Prof. A. Dirk Moses, Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the City College of New York
Prof. Hervè Georgelin, assistant professor, National University of Athens, Greece
Gregory Aftandilian, Senior Professorial Lecture, American University, Washington, D.C.
Prof. Julien Zarifian, professor of U.S. history, University of Poitiers, France
Prof. Fatma Müge Göçek, professor of sociology, University of Michigan
Prof. David Gaunt, emeritus professor of history, Södertörn University, Stockholm, Sweden
Prof. Tessa Hofmann, formerly Freie Universität Berlin, Germany, Institute for Eastern European Studies
Dr. Talar Chahinian, Continuing Lecturer in Armenian Studies, University of California, Irvine
Panarmenian.net
Several members of the Supreme Spiritual Council have received notices from Armenia’s Investigative Committee ordering them to appear for questioning.
According to Aysor.am, those summoned include Bishop Hovnan Hakobyan, primate of the Gugark Diocese; Bishop Makar Hakobyan, primate of the Syunik Diocese; Archbishop Haykazun Najaryan; and Bishop Mushegh Babayan.
Lawyer Armine Fanyan said the clergy were called to the Investigative Committee within the framework of the same criminal case as before — allegedly obstructing the enforcement of a court decision.
The Investigative Committee declined to comment on the matter.
“We do not comment,” the committee’s spokesperson told the media.
On March 12, the lay members of the Supreme Spiritual Council had also been summoned to the Investigative Committee.
Currently, six bishops and one priest from the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin hold the status of defendants in the case.
They are accused of obstructing the enforcement of a court ruling that requires the reinstatement of Arman Saroyan as primate of the Masis Diocese.
Earlier, the Investigative Committee had summoned Bishops Makar, Hovnan, Nathan, Haykazun, Mushegh and Vahan, as well as Father Movses.
Armenia is approaching what may become one of the most consequential electoral cycles since the political transformation that followed the 2018 Velvet Revolution.
The parliamentary elections scheduled for June 7, 2026, will take place amid continued security uncertainty, shifting geopolitical alignments, and unresolved debates over governance reform, foreign policy orientation, and national identity. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s ruling party is expected to seek reelection, while opposition forces, some connected to established political figures from earlier administrations and others representing newer critical voices, are preparing to challenge the government and offer alternative approaches.
Although electoral outcomes will ultimately be determined by voters physically present within Armenia, the country’s vast diaspora, numbering several times the domestic population, remains a powerful political stakeholder. Despite their exclusion from formal participation at the ballot box, diaspora communities continue to shape the national conversation through media, advocacy, fundraising, and transnational networks, amplifying debates over the country’s direction and policies.
The Armenian diaspora, estimated at five to seven million people, significantly exceeds Armenia’s domestic population of roughly three million. Large communities in Russia, the United States, France, and the Middle East operate within distinct political and media environments. These contexts shape how diaspora Armenians interpret developments in Armenia and how they seek to influence them. Diaspora engagement has historically taken the form of remittances, philanthropy, lobbying, and participation in transnational media networks. Following the 2020 war and the 2023 displacement of Armenians from Nagorno Karabakh, diaspora mobilization intensified, often in explicitly political terms.
Under Armenia’s current electoral framework, citizens abroad cannot vote. The law requires physical presence in Armenia on election day. Policymakers have historically justified this restriction by citing administrative feasibility, verification challenges, and security risks associated with overseas or electronic voting. Critics argue that the exclusion of citizens abroad creates a democratic deficit, particularly given that more ethnic Armenians live outside the country than within it.
The absence of enfranchisement has not rendered the diaspora politically neutral. Instead, it has redirected political engagement into informal but consequential channels. Diaspora actors operate through media ecosystems, fundraising networks, protest mobilization, and foreign policy advocacy. These arenas are often structured around well-established institutions with longstanding ideological identities and transnational reach.
The 2021 parliamentary elections illustrate this dynamic. In the weeks preceding the June 20 snap vote, nearly forty-seven diaspora organizations issued a coordinated public endorsement urging support for the opposition Armenia Alliance (founded in 2021 and led by former President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan). Although diaspora groups do not participate directly in elections, the episode demonstrated their willingness to articulate explicit political preferences and intervene in Armenia’s domestic debate from abroad. It also highlighted the role of highly organized networks in shaping diaspora messaging.
Diaspora-run media platforms reinforce this influence. Publications such as The Armenian Weekly, Zartonk Media, and Asbarez in the United States, Nouvelles d’Arménie Magazine in France, and Yerkramas in Russia serve as hubs for commentary and mobilization. Their coverage frequently circulates inside Armenia, especially during politically sensitive periods. Many of these outlets have given substantial space to criticism of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s post-war security policies, negotiation strategy with Azerbaijan, and broader geopolitical positioning.
Organized political structures amplify this ecosystem. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation maintains a uniquely transnational presence. Domestically, it holds parliamentary representation as part of the opposition Armenia Alliance. Internationally, it operates one of the most extensive Armenian organizational networks in the world, including youth federations, educational institutions, cultural associations, and advocacy arms across North America, Europe, Russia, and the Middle East. This dual structure enables it to function simultaneously as a domestic parliamentary actor and as a global mobilizing force. During periods of political crisis, ARF-affiliated structures abroad have articulated positions critical of the government’s territorial negotiations and national security approach, reinforcing opposition narratives through coordinated messaging.
In the United States, the Armenian National Committee of America remains one of the most prominent Armenian-American advocacy organizations. It does not participate directly in Armenian elections, but it shapes U.S. policy toward Armenia and regional security issues. Its campaigns often intersect with Armenia’s domestic political debates. Since 2020, ANCA has issued statements critical of aspects of the Armenian government’s negotiation process while pressing U.S. lawmakers on humanitarian assistance, sanctions enforcement, and security support.
An individual affiliated with ANCA, who requested anonymity, explained that their focus ahead of the 2026 elections will not be direct intervention in Armenian party politics but rather public awareness and advocacy. “Our responsibility is to inform and mobilize the Armenian American community about what is at stake,” the interlocutor stated. “Many of us are deeply dissatisfied with the government’s recent actions, especially on security issues. We cannot vote, but we can shape opinion, advocate in Washington, and ensure that policymakers understand the concerns of our community.” The comment reflects a broader pattern of diaspora engagement that emphasizes influence through information and foreign policy advocacy rather than formal electoral participation.
Comparative experience across the post-Soviet space underscores that diaspora enfranchisement is politically consequential. Moldova has expanded overseas voting through embassy based polling stations, and turnout from abroad has at times played a decisive role, often favoring reformist and pro-European platforms. Ukraine’s foreign ministry has been working on mechanisms to enable citizens abroad to vote in future elections once martial law is lifted, including discussions about digital voting systems. Georgia, by contrast, has moved to restrict overseas voting mechanisms and eliminate certain polling arrangements abroad, citing concerns about electoral vulnerability and foreign influence. Critics argue that these measures disproportionately affect migrant voters. These cases demonstrate that decisions about diaspora voting are rarely technical. They reflect broader struggles over legitimacy, political control, and national identity.
Armenia’s approach has so far favored restriction. Yet this does not shield domestic politics from diaspora influence. Instead, it produces a paradox. A globally dispersed population lacks ballots but retains the capacity to shape discourse, mobilize resources, and influence foreign governments whose policies affect Armenia directly. Political parties inside Armenia increasingly calibrate their messaging with diaspora narratives in mind, particularly on questions of security, sovereignty, and geopolitical alignment.
As Armenia approaches the 2026 parliamentary elections, the diaspora will remain politically engaged but institutionally excluded. Its influence will be measured not in votes cast but in narratives amplified, funds mobilized, advocacy campaigns launched, and international partnerships shaped. Whether Armenia eventually adopts an overseas voting mechanism or maintains its current framework, the relationship between the state and its global nation will remain central to the country’s democratic trajectory. The Armenian diaspora may not vote in 2026. It will nonetheless participate in shaping the political environment in which those votes are cast.
Unknown individuals attempted a phishing attack against NGOs in Armenia. They sent emails from an address resembling that of the ruling party. The messages appeared to come from a representative of the Civil Contract party.
|
|
representatives. They also targeted authors of analytical articles that criticise Russia’s policies. The attack also targeted the Regional Center for Democracy and Security, which he heads.
This is everything known at the time of publication. Journalists are seeking comment.
About the email sent in the name of a ruling party representative
The attackers sent the fake email in the name of Maria Karapetyan, a member of the ruling party. Civil society representatives who reported the possible attack noted that:
- The cyber fraudsters used the domain civilcontact.am and created fake email addresses.
- The text of the email contained numerous grammatical mistakes.
- The message was written in Armenian, but the party name “Civil Contract” appeared in English.
NGO representatives contacted information security experts and the cyber police. The authorities have already blocked access to the fraudulent website civilcontact.am.
“An obvious hybrid attack”
“A group of fraudsters registered a domain that closely resembled the domain of the Civil Contract party and misled recipients. The cyber criminals used it to send emails and tried to obtain people’s data and email addresses,” said ruling party member Vaagn Aleksanyan.
According to him, not only civil society representatives received such emails. Some party members also received them.
“As far as I understand, the goal was to collect data. The message included various questions, a kind of Google form. The attackers attached it to the email as a questionnaire. The recipient had to fill it out. They may have tried to gain access to email passwords this way,” he explained.
Aleksanyan believes such attacks will become more frequent ahead of the parliamentary elections. The country will hold them on 7 June.
In this context, he also referred to an investigation into a printed newspaper distributed on the streets of Yerevan. Investigative journalists found that despite its American symbolism, the paper had been printed in Russia.
“At the same time, disinformation about a supposed shooting in Syunik spread online. It is obvious that we are dealing with a hybrid attack,” the ruling party member said.
One of the local television channels found copies of a newspaper called Wyoming Star in several districts of Yerevan. Distributors hand it out for free, mainly in the city center. The editor of the 12-page newspaper, published in Armenian and English, remains unknown. The articles carry no bylines. All of the paper’s materials criticize Armenia’s current authorities.
Journalists found that printers produce the newspaper in Russia and then bring it to Armenia. The last page states that private entrepreneur Shukuryan Vanik Volodyaevich publishes the paper. However, the Armenian state register of legal entities does not list him. Shukuryan told journalists that he does not personally know the owner or editor of Wyoming Star. People he “cooperates with” know them.
“No shootings or explosions occurred on Armenian territory. Certain groups circulate articles with manipulative headlines and try to create unacceptable tension among the population,” ministry spokesperson Aram Torosyan said.
Information security expert Artur Papyan believes:
“Either Azerbaijanis or Russians carry out major cyberattacks in Armenia. When we see that attackers target Armenia and the digital trace links to Ukrainian infrastructure, we can confidently assume that Russians are behind it.
The latest phishing attack aimed to gain access to the Google accounts of prominent civil society representatives and government officials. Why? Because for many people their Google accounts link to backup copies of phone contacts and to WhatsApp.
Even if all official or work correspondence takes place elsewhere, access to these shared files can still have significant value. It can also provide important intelligence.
Attempts to gain access to Google accounts remain one of the most common methods. People need to improve their level of digital security and remain vigilant about suspicious messages.
People who hold important or sensitive information should ideally use Google Advanced Protection. This especially applies in the context of Armenia’s European integration and democratic values.
For example, when I tried to follow the link mentioned in the email, Google immediately stopped me and warned that it was very dangerous.”
commentary,
—
Armenia PM congratulates Kazakhstan president on constitutional referendum
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan sent a congratulatory message to Kazakhstan President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev on the successful holding of the constitutional referendum, the PM’s office said in a readout.
Pashinyan congratulated Tokayev on the vote, describing it as a fundamental step toward building the “Fair Kazakhstan” proclaimed by the president.
He said the results of the popular vote once again demonstrated the responsible attitude of Kazakhstan’s citizens in ensuring the country’s independence and sovereignty and in building a prosperous and modern society governed by the rule of law.
Pashinyan also expressed confidence that the constitutional reforms in Kazakhstan would give new impetus to the strategic partnership between Yerevan and Astana and contribute to strengthening friendship between the two nations.
He wished Tokayev success in his state activities, as well as good health and prosperity.
Published by Armenpress, original at
—
Armenia’s Security Council chief meets Nordic-Baltic delegation
Armenia’s Security Council Secretary Armen Grigoryan received a delegation consisting of directors of Eastern Europe departments of the foreign ministries of countries included in the Nordic-Baltic cooperation format, his office said in a statement.
At the request of the delegation, Grigoryan presented steps aimed at further institutionalising peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan and outlined their significance.
Members of the delegation expressed support for efforts aimed at establishing peace and stability in the region.
The meeting also addressed the regional situation and related security developments, the statement said.
Published by Armenpress, original at
—
Armenpress: Robert Kocharyan to run as Armenia bloc’s PM candidate in 2026 ele
The “Armenia” bloc will take part in the parliamentary elections under the leadership of Armenia’s second president, Robert Kocharyan, the bloc’s lawmaker Anna Grigoryan said.
Grigoryan, a member of the National Assembly’s “Armenia” faction, said Kocharyan would be the bloc’s candidate for prime minister.
The “Armenia” bloc, led by Kocharyan, also participated in the 2021 parliamentary elections, receiving 269,481 votes, or 21.09%.
The next parliamentary elections are scheduled for June 7, 2026.
Published by Armenpress, original at
—