Armenian Directory & News – Page 393 – Armenian Business Directory & News

Asbarez: Armen Agop to Represent the Egypt Pavilion at 61st Venice Biennale

March 14, 2026March 14, 2026 Khondkarian Raffi

by Contributor

March 13, 2026

in Arts & Culture, Latest, News, Top Stories

Armen Agop by Karim Kaddal lowres

The The Ministry of Culture of Egypt has announced that artist Armen Agop has been selected to represent Egypt at the 61st International Art Exhibition – La Biennale di Venezia. An artist whose work traverses the boundaries of the spiritual and physical realms, Armen Agop is known for his distinct visual language rooted in silence, introspection, and permanence. The exhibition opens to the public on May 9 and continues through November 22.

Agop’s practice distills form to its most meditative essence, as his focus is on the invisible and the internal energy that an artwork transmits, embodying a spirituality within a physical form. Soberness, slowness, and renouncement of demonstrative abilities are features that characterize his ascetic approach, a conviction that has defined his work for over three decades “Egypt represents one of the most important civilizations and La Biennale di Venezia is one of the most important art exhibitions in the world, being part of that is one of the greatest honors and responsibilities an artist can have.” Agop said regarding his selection.

Agop, who is both artist and curator, says that “the Egypt Pavilion will be a space for contemplation.” He has entitled the exhibition, “Silence Pavilion: Between the Tangible and the Intangible,” inviting the viewer to listen to the silence, observe the invisible, and discern the scents and sounds of the intangible.

Rooted in both ancient Egyptian sensibilities and a cross-cultural worldview, his work offers a contemplative counter-melody—one that speaks in “minor keys” through depth rather than volume. The artist’s presentation for the Egyptian Pavilion aligns with the Biennale Arte 2026 conceptual frame, reflecting on how nuance, inwardness, and delicate shifts of perception can reveal an alternative mode of awareness.

This appointment carries a unique historical resonance: “My grandfather survived the Armenian genocide by Turkey and arrived in Egypt, where the Armenians were welcomed. Representing Egypt therefore has symbolic meaning and a successful demonstration of cultural coexistence that transcends geographical boundaries. An example for our contemporary situation: our humanity can transcend the limits of reason. I believe we are more human in unity than in separation. And now, having lived in Italy since 2000, the cultural interaction is enriching, and the horizon continually expands like a boundless desert, sustaining consistent growth.

In 2026, Agop brings to the Egypt Pavilion a renewed perspective on silence, not as absence but as presence — a conscious act of grounding in a time of global acceleration. His participation symbolizes both personal continuity and Egypt’s broader cultural evolution.

Born in Cairo in 1969, Armen Agop creates sculptures and paintings that explore the relationship between the physical and spiritual. Rooted in his Egyptian-Armenian heritage, his work connects ancient traditions with contemporary practice, blurring the line between art-making and meditation.

Inspired by the desert, Agop distills his work into essential forms free of narrative or representation. His pieces become meditations—recordings of time and consciousness, echoes of a spiritual process rather than representations of form.

Agop graduated from the Faculty of Fine Arts at Helwan University, Cairo in 1992. Major awards include the Prix de Rome (2000), the Umberto Mastroianni Award (2010), and the Premio Sulmona, Presidential Medal of the Italian Republic (2013). His works are held in collections including the Saudi Arabia Museum of Contemporary Art, Mathaf (Doha), Barjeel Art Foundation (Sharjah), and the Egyptian Modern Art Museum (Cairo). He lives and works in Pietrasanta, Italy.

Commissioned by the Egyptian ministry of culture – Accademia d’Egitto a Roma, the National Pavilion of Egypt has participated in the International Art Exhibition La Biennale di Venezia since 1938, making it one of the longest-standing participants. Located in the Giardini, the pavilion was designed by architect Brenno Del Giudice in 1932 and has served as Egypt’s permanent home at the Biennale since 1952. In 1995, Egypt was awarded the Golden Lion for Best National Participation. The pavilion serves as a platform for Egypt’s most innovative artistic voices, providing a space for dialogue, cultural exchange, and creative collaboration. It represents Egypt’s rich artistic heritage while showcasing contemporary innovation on the international stage.

—

CC: Armenia has expressed concerns about an influx of refugees from Iran.

March 14, 2026March 14, 2026 Emil Lazarian

· MARCH 13, 2026

Caucasian Knot

Humanitarian aid collection for arriving Iranians has begun in Yerevan, with one foundation’s ambassador stating that up to a million people could arrive in Armenia. Authorities reported that citizens of 46 countries, including Iranian citizens, have arrived in Armenia since the situation began to escalate.

As reported by the “Caucasian Knot,” 2,057 people have been evacuated from Iran to Azerbaijan, including 362 Azerbaijani citizens and 291 Russian citizens. Russians are being asked to leave Iran via Armenia.

Humanitarian aid collection points for refugees from Iran have already opened in Yerevan – they are collecting warm children’s clothing, cereals, and canned goods, the “Vot Tak” project* reports.

Armenia could face a humanitarian crisis due to refugees from Iran – there are approximately 150,000 Iranian-Armenian families living in Iran, and it’s possible that other Iranian citizens will also come to Armenia, Michael Avetikyan, ambassador for the Armenian Food Bank, said in a video.

“Refugees from Iran will soon begin crossing the border, fleeing the war, and of course they will come here to Armenia. According to our estimates, based on the global humanitarian crisis moving into the region, especially Armenia, we realize that there could be around a million people,” he said.

Armenia must be prepared for the possible arrival of refugees and effectively limit this flow, political scientist Georgi Tumasyan said in an interview with 1in.am.

In his opinion, the likelihood of a significant influx from Iran exists, since Armenia has organized an evacuation corridor. “We must remember that Azerbaijan’s border is closed. That is, the northwestern part only has access to Armenia. This danger is indeed present, so we must monitor the situation at the checkpoint. According to rough estimates, the Armenian diaspora numbers 100,000 people, and I don’t think this is a major problem for Armenia, but the government must think through and prepare in advance,” Tumasyan stated.

In his opinion, it is essential that Armenian border guards fully take control of the border with Iran.

Starting January 1, 2025, the border troops of the National Security Service of Armenia will participate in protecting the state borders with Iran and Turkey, and only Armenian border guards will serve at the Agarak checkpoint. An agreement to this effect was reached during a meeting between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Russian President Vladimir Putin. According to Armenian political scientists, the agreement on the withdrawal of border guards will be a geopolitical trump card for both Russia and Armenia, while Russian analysts believe that this could be a harbinger of a reduction in Russia’s military presence in Armenia.

“Russian border guards should be removed as soon as possible, and Armenian border guards must ensure that borders are not violated,” he emphasized.

The Armenian Foreign Ministry reported today that citizens of 46 countries left Iran for Armenia from February 28 to March 10. Among them are citizens of Iran, Georgia and Turkey, the United States and Canada, Russia, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, France, and other countries, according to Armenian News.

Armenia serves as an important humanitarian corridor for the evacuation of citizens of EU countries, European Parliament President Roberta Mezzola stated at a joint briefing with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan met on March 11 in Strasbourg, according to a video of the meeting published by News.Am.

As a reminder, on February 28, Israel and the United States began striking Iran. Donald Trump announced the start of a large-scale military operation. In response, Iran began shelling Israel, American military facilities, and civilian targets in the Middle East, according to the Caucasian Knot report “Key Issues in the Impact of the Military Conflict with Iran on the Caucasus.”

On March 5, a drone attack on the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic injured four people. Ilham Aliyev called the attack “a deliberate terrorist act by Iran,” and the Azerbaijani army was put on alert.

The drone attack was likely deliberate, but Azerbaijan will initially limit itself to diplomatic and political measures, avoiding direct military escalation, analysts in Baku suggested. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister stated that the Islamic Republic did not strike Azerbaijan.

—

Senator Sasha Renée Pérez Endorses Dr. Edit Khachatryan for Glendale Communit

March 14, 2026March 14, 2026 Chatinian Lara

· MARCH 13, 2026

GLENDALE, CA — Dr. Edit Khachatryan, candidate for the Glendale Community College Board of Trustees, Area 2, announced the endorsement of State Senator Sasha Renée Pérez (District 25).

“As Chair of the Senate Education Committee, I know how critical experienced educators are to shaping strong institutions,” said Senator Sasha Renée Pérez. “Dr. Khachatryan brings real classroom expertise, a deep understanding of curriculum and student success, and a lifelong commitment to equity and quality public education. Her hands-on experience makes her uniquely qualified to serve on the Glendale Community College Board of Trustees, and I am proud to endorse her.”

The endorsement from Senator Pérez adds to the growing coalition of community leaders, educators, and labor advocates supporting Dr. Khachatryan’s campaign, positioning her as the frontrunner in the race.

“I’m deeply honored to have Senator Pérez’s endorsement,” said Dr. Edit Khachatryan. “Senator Pérez has been a tireless leader for equity, strong public education and the rights of working families across California. Her leadership in the State Senate reflects the values I will bring to the Glendale Community College Board: expanding opportunity for students, supporting educators and staff, and ensuring our community colleges remain engines of economic mobility.”

Dr. Edit Khachatryan is an educator, researcher, and community advocate running for the Glendale Community College Board of Trustees, Area 2. She believes effective leadership means listening closely, using data and lived experience to guide decisions, and staying deeply connected to the community, ensuring the college delivers for students, families, and Glendale. She entered the race with endorsements from four current members of the Glendale Community College Board of Trustees: Dr. Sevan Benlian, Dr. Armine Hacopian, Yvette Vartanian Davis, and Ann Ransford. She has since received the endorsement of the Glendale College Guild, Glendale Teachers Association, Glendale Firefighters Association Local 776, and the East Area Progressive Democrats.

—

How Pashinyan is working to topple Catholicos Karekin II

March 14, 2026March 14, 2026 Hambardsumian Paul

· MARCH 13, 2026

As parliamentary elections grow nearer, tensions between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and the Armenian Apostolic Church continue to build.

By Arshaluys Barseghyan

OC Mdia

Catholicos Karekin II (left) and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan (right). Official photo

Although Armenia is constitutionally secular, Christianity forms a core part of the national identity, with Armenians taking pride in being widely regarded as the first country to adopt Christianity as a state religion in 301. The current head of the Armenian Apostolic Church, Catholicos Karekin II, maintained close ties with Armenia’s previous leaders, creating favorable conditions for cooperation. Under Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, however, relations have shifted, with developments surrounding Church-state relations coming to dominate public and political discourse.

The topic again rose to prominence in May 2025, when a new round of tension between the Church and state escalated after Pashinyan criticized Church leadership for failing to properly maintain churches across the country, comparing them to ‘storage rooms’ filled with construction materials and other non-religious items

As accusations against the Church, and specifically against Karekin II, continued to grow, Pashinyan gradually made clear that he was seeking to oust the Catholicos.

In January, this goal was formally articulated in a Church reform agenda signed by Pashinyan and 10 senior clergy members at Pashinyan’s official residence. The statement announced the creation of a Coordinating Council to be composed of the signatories and tasked with overseeing the organizational aspects of the reform process. Notably, Pashinyan signed the document in his capacity as Armenia’s prime minister — rather than as a follower of the Armenian Apostolic Church, as he had previously framed his involvement in Church issues — raising widespread concern that the move may have violated the constitution.

As Armenia heads toward its 2026 parliamentary elections, Pashinyan’s government has intensified its criticism of the Church, including warning of ‘hybrid threats’ facing the country, widely interpreted as referring to Russia, and hinting at Karekin II’s alleged foreign ties. It remains to be seen if Pashinyan will succeed in ousting Karekin II, however.

Why does Pashinyan want Karekin II out?

Pashinyan has put forward several justifications for seeking to replace Karekin II as Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church, but two stand out.

First, he claims Karekin II violated his vow of celibacy and fathered a daughter, which would make him ineligible for the post.

Second — and more seriously — Pashinyan alleges that Karekin II has ties to ‘foreign intelligence services’, apparently Russian, which pose a threat to Armenia’s security. The accusations have raised questions about why no action was taken earlier, if Pashinyan’s government was aware of the information after coming to power in 2018.

Rejecting claims that he is seeking a more loyal Church leader, Pashinyan has claimed that he wants one free of foreign ties.

Russian–Armenian billionaire Samvel Karapetyan and Catholicos Karekin II. Official photo.Still, as the standoff deepens, increasingly serious accusations against Karekin II and other senior clergy are always on offer — including allegations of paedophilia, employing ‘sectarian logic’, preaching ‘radical texts’, and ensuring ‘shadow money’ enters Armenia ‘to be used for political purposes’ — alongside the continued arrests of clergy on criminal grounds.

In February, Pashinyan offered further insights into his confrontation in an interview with Public TV, accusing the Church of acting as ‘a foreign state within the state’ and insisting that ‘the church should not engage in politics’.

Citing prior calls by Karekin II for Pashinyan’s resignation, as well as Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan’s 2024 anti-government protests, Pashinyan claimed such actions could not ‘remain without consequences, because we are talking about the sovereignty and security of our state’.

What pressure is Pashinyan employing against the Church?

Since the renewed confrontation, the government has taken a series of steps critics describe as repressive, targeting both the Church and Karekin II, interfering in the Church’s internal affairs, and using law enforcement as instruments of political pressure.

To start, four high-ranking priests have been placed in pre-trial detention on various charges, with two later remanded to house arrest and one under administrative supervision. The cases have sparked concern, particularly as some charges relate to incidents or statements from years ago, which authorities had previously declined to open investigations into, citing a lack of grounds.

Beyond the four detained clergy — including Karekin II’s nephew, Bishop Mkrtich Proshyan — other clerics, including Karekin II himself, have faced charges, with measures ranging from pre-trial detention to travel bans. Earlier in February, such restrictions prevented Karekin II from attending a bishops’ synod in Austria, in line with Pashinyan’s statement.

The cases have also affected other members of Karekin II’s family. His brother Gevorg Nersisyan and Nersisyan’s son Hambardzum were arrested during a local election campaign in Vagharshapat in November 2025. Following Pashinyan’s allegations, the Armenian Security Service (NSS) declassified documents claiming another brother, Archbishop Yezras, head of the Diocese of New Nakhchivan and Russia, had been recruited by the Soviet-era KGB.

Attempts to publicly discredit senior clergy have also intensified. Intimate footage allegedly depicting Archbishop Arshak Khachatryan was leaked, and the Pashinyan-affiliated website Civic.am has published a photo of Bishop Kirakos Davtyan in an alleged intoxicated, partially undressed state, suggesting he was an alcoholic.

Separately, authorities dissolved the Spiritual-Cultural Public TV company, which broadcasts the Church-founded Shoghakat TV. Reports also indicate that military commanders have pressured army chaplains to back Pashinyan’s reform agenda, while defrocked clergy were allowed to conduct liturgies under police supervision, with Pashinyan and officials in attendance. NSS officials were involved in omitting Karekin II’s name from services, a move that disrupted the established order of the religious ceremony and was a sign of protest against the Catholicos by his subordinates.

How is Karekin II fighting back?

Since tensions with the authorities increased in May 2025, Karekin II has defrocked or removed several opponents within the Church as a main tactic to fight back.

Among the first to be defrocked, in October 2025, was priest Aram Asatryan, an early vocal supporter of Pashinyan within the clergy. Neither Asatryan nor Pashinyan accepted Karekin II’s decision to strip him of his status; Pashinyan even attended a liturgy led by Asatryan following the decision. The Mother See called this liturgy ‘a soul-destroying initiative’ and accused Pashinyan of attempting to ‘split the Church’.

Asatryan remained at his assigned church, often seen under police protection. In January, the Church filed two lawsuits demanding the return of the church keys and a Yerevan apartment allocated to Asatryan by the Mother See.

The highest-ranking clergyman affected was Bishop Gevorg Saroyan, who was defrocked in January after suing to challenge his dismissal as Primate of the Masyatsotn Diocese.

Bishop Gevorg Saroyan. Official photo.Responding to criticism over the defrocking practices, the Mother See reported that during Karekin II’s 26-year tenure, 101 clergymen had been dismissed, including 21 directly by the Catholicos himself. At the same time, 491 clergymen were ordained.

Neither Armenian authorities, nor the defrocked clergy members have accepted Karekin II’s decisions, pointing towards his alleged illegitimacy as head of the Church.

Separately, Karekin II and the official Mother See have so far responded modestly to the accusations, avoiding offensive language, unlike their opponents, who have publicly used priests’ civilian names as well as obscene speech. That being said, some clergy have offered insults, calling Pashinyan ‘the chief madman of the country’ or ‘Judas’.

In official statements, Karekin II and the Mother See have described the authorities’ actions as ‘oppression’, ‘interference in internal affairs’, and an ‘anti-Church campaign’ that ‘poses a grave threat to our national unity, undermines [Armenia]’s internal stability, and strikes directly at Armenian statehood’.

The Church has also said Pashinyan’s initiative ‘directly violates’ the Armenian constitution and infringes on the rights of the Church, guaranteed both internationally and under Armenian law, and described the prosecutions of clergy as unjust.

Who’s winning the clergy’s loyalty?

Despite some clergy siding with Pashinyan, the majority have remained loyal to Karekin II or stayed silent.

Following the publication of the Church reform statement, the ruling Civil Contract party reported that another 20 or so clergy members had joined the initiative.

However, some of the 10 senior clergy members who signed the statement have been linked to past corruption cases and charges under Pashinyan’s government. In addition, one of them, Archbishop Hovnan Derderian, has since appeared to turn on Pashinyan by signing a statement urging Armenian authorities to ‘stop the persecution of the Church’. In February, he and 24 other high-ranking priests ‘reaffirm[ed] his loyalty to the Mother See and the Catholicos’.

At the same time, the latest survey by the International Republican Institute (IRI) found that the Church was the second institution Armenians were most satisfied with after the Armed Forces, with 39% very satisfied with both. However, satisfaction with the Church leadership was lower, with only 23% saying they were very satisfied.

Can Pashinyan succeed?

Despite the release of a reform agenda with an explicit goal of ousting Karekin II, the roadmap offers no clear explanation of how such a goal could be achieved. The Armenian Apostolic Church does not grant external actors any role in the election or removal of the Catholicos, leaving significant legal and procedural gaps in the proposal.

The Catholicos, as the Church clarifies, ‘is elected for life in the National-Church Assembly, ordained and consecrated by 12 bishops in the Mother See Cathedral’.

Additionally, Armenia is a secular state, and its constitution draws clear boundaries between the state and religious institutions. In particular, Article 17 states that ‘the freedom of activities of religious organisations shall be guaranteed’ in the country.

The constitution further limits the actions of state officials, stating that they ‘shall be entitled to perform only such actions for which they are authorised under the constitution or laws’.

Citing these articles, Pashinyan’s critics argue that these provisions prohibit direct government intervention in Church affairs, and that any such attempt by the executive to influence the removal of the Catholicos would exceed constitutional authority and violate the constitution.

Even so, Pashinyan vowed in January that he intended to make Karekin II reconsider and resign.

‘[Former Prime Minister] Serzh Sargsyan also had no intention of leaving, but he was forced to leave; the same will happen to Ktrich Nersisyan [Karekin II] — he will be forced to leave as well’.

—

Foe or Friend? US-Bilateral Relations Seem Set to Improve as Interests Align —

March 14, 2026March 14, 2026 Jhanna Virabian

· MARCH 13, 2026

U.S. Navy Adm. Stuart B. Munsch, commander, Allied Joint Forces Command Naples, Italy, observes and discusses the establishment of NATO temporary housing for people affected by the earthquakes in Türkiye as a site for a camp is being prepared near Iskenderun Naval Base, Türkiye, Feb. 24 2023. The work on the ground prepared the site to ensure that a camp could rapidly be built once containers of temporary housing arrive at the site. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Cameron C. Edy/Released)

By Rich Outzen

Few alliance relationships generate as much public drama as US-Turkish ties. In the roughly seventy-five years since Turkish accession to NATO there have been ups and downs between Washington and Ankara, with the past twenty years marked by particularly sharp differences over regional policy and frequent bouts of public criticism and recriminations. President Trump’s second term has brought a positive turn in tone and optics—but there are still widespread perceptions in both capitals that the “other” ally is at best unreliable and perhaps more foe than friend.

Mutually antagonistic narratives have served domestic political purposes in both countries and have become something of a staple in the age of populist democracy of the twenty-first century. Yet the two countries rely on each other extensively in matters of trade, diplomacy, and security. State-to-state relationships are sometimes smoothed over in public but fractious in practice; the US-Turkish dyad is the rarer obverse: disagreeable in public for domestic audiences while resting on a high degree of alignment and collaboration.

Where do bilateral relations go when trust is low, mutual perception negative, but operational collaboration frequent? The answer depends less on rhetoric or polemical discourse and more on alignment of practical interests: We therefore must clear away the smoke of domestically motivated rhetoric to instead focus on mutual benefit. If two states pursue compatible goals and interests, room remains to balance internal political benefits with geopolitical cooperation in a form of complex interdependence. Whether that is the case for the United States and Turkey is a matter of substantial interest, given the weight that both have in the international system and the substantial number of crises and international matters that affect them.

Rorschach test

Articulating interests is more of a political than an academic exercise. It also presents something of a Rorschach test: If you ascribe ideological frames as determinative of status for Ankara (e.g., neo-Ottomanism, Muslim Brotherhood Islamism, reckless aggression) it brings you to one implied set of Turkish interests. If you accept declarative policy as the whole story you get another implied set. It is similarly the case for the United States: If you assume hegemonic interests are the primary driver, it takes you down a certain path; however, that road shifts significantly between and sometimes within presidential administrations. American interests as viewed by Trump differ significantly from those of his predecessor. Yet pattern analysis over time—observed behaviors and statements toward particular goals—tell us how specific a US president and his Turkish counterpart actually perceive the degree to which their interests overlap.

As an imperfect but useful generality, we can ascribe the following traits to Turkish foreign policy: multiaxial engagement and balance-seeking, nationalistic, hard power/realpolitik, traditionally but conditionally attached to the status quo. For decades, Ankara has sought to maximize autonomy while pressing for positive coalitions, where possible. For most of the current century, the United States has focused on maintaining a privileged or primary position in the international system, leavened increasingly with a dose of parsimony and pragmatism, but resting on what might be called enduring counter-revisionism (still in the tradition of US naval strategist and historian Alfred Thayer Mahan).

Ankara and Washington have demonstrated a generally cooperative approach across numerous regional and global issues in recent decades because their top-line approaches are compatible: one a retrenching-but-potent leading power, the other a rising middle power, both disinclined to establish imperial arrangements or to allow others to do so. A brief review of these issues illustrates this general (if imperfect) alignment by assigning numeric values reflecting relative alignment of strategic and diplomatic approaches between the two. Any such numbers game comes with attendant risk of overgeneralizing and missing some context, but statecraft and policy analysis at the higher levels of abstraction unavoidably entail some risk in this regard. So the numbers below are presented as suggestive rather than determinative.

In the table below, full interest alignment equals 1, partial interest alignment 0.5, neither alignment nor friction 0, friction -0.5, counteralignment -1. Descriptions of the cases follow the table.

Black Sea/Ukraine: Both sides wish to see the war end with Ukrainian independence intact; neither recognizes Russian claims over Crimea or Donbass, though Washington has signaled willingness to negotiate the status of territories Russia partially or fully occupies at present. Some differences exist regarding Black Sea access: The United States might like to have access for its own ships and more broadly for a NATO presence and routine access, while Turkey has preferred littoral NATO states do the lifting and a strict interpretation of the Montreux Convention; but neither wants a Russian conquest of Ukraine’s coastline. For a Trump administration interested in some compromise deal with Moscow, the Turkish position is complementary.

Caucasus/Russia: While the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) offers wins for the region and the United States, the Armenian position is a wildcard with elections approaching. Should Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan get the boot in parliamentary elections (to be held no later than mid-June 2026), the United States may tack back to a position that pressures Azerbaijan and marginalizes Ankara. Russian and Iranian pushback on a deal that opens the region to trade on US-friendly terms can be expected. Interest alignment here between Ankara and Washington is solid, though the prospects for realized gain uncertain.

Central Asia: The TRIPP shows US interest in opening up more trade to Central Asia and balancing against outright domination of the region by Russia or China. The Middle Corridor and the Organization of Turkic States both have value in this regard—and have generated more interest from the Trump administration than its predecessor. Central Asia has not traditionally been an area of high investment for the US government; however, energy companies are interested, so having an ally be more engaged is an advantage.

Africa: US investment and engagement in Africa has lagged, but Washington has concerns about Chinese or Russian influence on the continent. Meanwhile, Turkey has dramatically increased its diplomatic, military, and economic presence in Africa over the past two decades. In countries like Somalia and Libya, Turkish presence has lent heft to US diplomatic and counterterror initiatives. Africa demonstrates the complementarity of having compatible goals but varying levels of commitment.

Syria: Trump has made clear his policy that Syria will be stabilized and maintained as a unitary state and that Ahmed al-Sharaa is an acceptable figure to lead. This comports with Turkish policy, despite Israel’s objections. The assignment of Trump confidant Thomas J. Barrack Jr. as special envoy and positive statements from the US-Turkish working group on Syria have shown close convergence on Syria policy, a remarkable turnaround from the previous decade. The January 2026 agreement to reintegrate northeast Syria with the Syrian Transitional Government was a sign that this alignment was proving determinative on the ground.

Iraq: Washington wants a stable Iraq that is: not dominated by Iran; oriented to Western energy markets more than Iranian or Chinese; and working amicably with the Kurdistan Regional Government. Iraq may not fulfill all those interests, but Ankara shares them, and the Development Road project to foster Eastern trade with Europe provides a vehicle for all three countries to earn profits while tightening Baghdad’s ties to Western economies. The presence of PKK fighters in northern Iraq remains a point of friction, but ongoing negotiations to disarm the PKK – and US support for those talks – has taken helped reduce that friction.

Gaza: Washington and Ankara both pressed Israel and Hamas, respectively, to accept a ceasefire deal, return of hostages, and military withdrawal from Gaza in return for disarmament. While the truce remains shaky as of late 2025 and the end state Trump and Erdoğan have in mind may differ somewhat, the coordination on diplomatic efforts has been unambiguous.

Iran: There is divergence here between the hard line taken in Washington toward the Islamic Republic and the modus vivendi approach in Ankara. While Ankara may not want regime change in Tehran, and wants to protect trade with its neighbor, the Turkish government has no illusions about Tehran’s destabilizing regional behavior and shares an interest in deterring it. Ankara has tightened enforcement of multilateral sanctions on the Iranian nuclear program—partially redressing a long-standing US grievance with Ankara. The launch of Israel-U.S. Operation Epic Fury to destroy Iran’s power projection and nuclear capabilities has driven fears of instability and chaos along the Turkish border, turning this from an area of some overlap into an area of friction.

Energy: Ankara’s energy diplomacy has sought to position the country as a hub for multidirectional energy transit and major new gas, oil, and nuclear deals have been signed with Washington. US pressure to decrease oil purchases from Russia has created some strain, as Ankara cannot shift to alternate suppliers as quickly as it can with gas.

US global leadership: American leadership that cooperates with Ankara on key strategic objectives, praising in public and transacting in private, plays like music to the ears of Turks. This contrasts greatly with the constraining approach Turkish leaders called for regarding perceived American overreach in Iraq, Syria, and other regions over the past two decades, including demands to reform the United Nations to lessen the power of the five permanent members. Still, this middle power and the great power have imperfect but positive alignment at present.

Trade/defense trade: The relatively light 15 percent tariff levied on Turkish goods and the $100 billion shared goal for bilateral trade are clear indicators of positive intentions. But defense trade is thorny, with a congressional role and some competition between rising Turkish defense players and US prime defense contractors.

European Union: Ankara and Washington remain at odds with Brussels ideologically and stylistically, while maintaining strong strategic and trade ties with numerous members states. Yet the tensions stem from different sources: Turkish desire to enter the bloc and the American administration’s desire to end what it perceives as the EU’s exploitative trade and security practices.

Eastern Mediterranean: The continuing friction between Greece and Turkey redounds against US-Turkish bilateral relations—a problem that continues to play out in the region and in Congress.

Sanctions: The divergences are clear regarding imposition: Ankara supports multilateral but generally not unilateral sanctions and enforcement, whereas the Turkish track record looks spotty from Washington’s perspective.

Israel: Ankara and Jerusalem pursued a rapprochement in the months before October 7, 2023; since then, rancor, acrimony, and mutual suspicion have become the norm. While regional competition over Syria, the Palestinians, and other issues can be managed, related tensions spill over into US-Turkish bilateral relations in a major way—and that seems likely to persist.

Venezuela: Erdoğan’s quixotic friendship with President Maduro had its roots in terms of oil sales and multipolarity theory, but was a clear point of policy divergence as Trump upped the pressure level on Caracas. With the early 2026 arrest of Maduro and muted response from Ankara, this seems likely to be a decreasing source of tension in U.S.-Turkish relations.

A clear trend and policy takeaway

In conclusion, this assessment sketch of sixteen complicated cases of regional and global policy matters yields eleven that demonstrate substantial bilateral alignment, four with significant unalignment, and one somewhere in between. The aggregate score by the simple rubric of “words and deeds reflect alignment” was positive (+4.5 – with the caveat that these numbers are illustrative but rooted more in subjective alignment rather than formal quantitative criteria). An honest critic might quibble with individual ratings and the framing of the cases or argue for the salience of other matters. Yet sixteen is a reasonable sample size, the thought exercise is revealing, and the trend clear: more alignment than friction overall.

The policy takeaway is equally clear: maintaining a working relationship is vital for both countries. Those arguing for punitive approaches (by the United States) or hedging (by Turkey) disregard potential mutual benefits as well as both opportunity costs and implementation costs. Managing differences and satisfying domestic sentiment require an adaptive response from policy elites in both countries, but the record of cooperation in 2025 indicates that the pragmatism of both presidents fits the moment—and the alignment.

Rich Outzen is a geopolitical consultant and nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Turkey with thirty-two years of government service both in uniform and as a civilian. Follow him on X @RichOutzen.

—

Turkish Halkbank announces settlement of US criminal case linked to Iran

March 14, 2026March 14, 2026 Jalatian Sonya

· MARCH 13, 2026

—

Is Armenia Going in the Right Direction with Nikol Pashinyan?

March 14, 2026March 14, 2026 Babken Chilingarian

· MARCH 13, 2026

The response of Sona Aghekian, a member of the “Mother Armenia” Alliance and illegally deprived of her Yerevan mayor’s mandate, to Nikol Pashinyan’s message “The Ideology of Real Armenia” delivered on February 19, 2025 .

Below, we present Nikol Pashinyan’s aforementioned message point by point. Each point is followed by Sona Aghekian’s response to the corresponding point in italics.

Prime Minister’s Staff

Department of Information and Public Relations Press Release

Wednesday, February 19, 2025

The ideology of the real Armenia: the Prime Minister addressed the people with a message

PROJECT

The ideology of the real Armenia

Nikol Pashinyan – The real Armenia is the Republic of Armenia, internationally recognized with an area of 29,743 square kilometers.

The vision of the progress and development of the Republic of Armenia, based on the ideology of the Real Armenia, is multi-layered and must be expressed in all spheres of state and public life.

Sona Aghekyan – Armenia has always been and will always be real, it’s another thing that at the moment the members of this wandering group have turned our country into an incredible place.

1. N.P. – Homeland is the state, do you love your homeland, strengthen your state – Homeland is one of the most cherished concepts of the linguistic thinking of our Armenians. But it is not related to the system of rights and obligations, it has geographical perception options and perceptions. This ideology of real Armenia identifies the homeland with the internationally recognized state, the Republic of Armenia, patriotism with the interests of that state, the system of rights and obligations defined in it. For the development of this model of patriotism, it is essential that the people, the citizen perceive themselves not only as the founder of the state, but also as the source of the legal order established in the state, perceive the constitutional order established in the state as a national agreement of coexistence achieved with their participation. The adoption of a new Constitution by a national referendum is essential for this system, since all previous referendums held to adopt the current Constitution have a serious lack of legitimacy, at least in public perception. The strategic goal of adopting the new Constitution is the transition from the relict (residual) way of doing things of a stateless nation to the way of doing things of a state-formed people.

1. S. A. – The homeland is the people, do you love your homeland, strengthen your people? The homeland for an Armenian is not just a state, nor a territory constrained by borders. It is the Spirit of the Armenian, its language, history, culture, its Truth Preserved by Struggle and Blood. States come and go, constitutions are accepted and rejected, but the Armenian people remain, with their identity, with their unwavering will.

A Free, Sovereign People Is the Foundation of a True State. Without a Powerful People, a State is Just an Empty Formality. If the State Is Not on Your Side, Does Not Protect Your Interests, Then It Is Not Worthy of Your Loyalty. The Homeland is not a country, the Homeland is the Armenian people, and their will must be Absolute Value.

2. N. P. – As the soul becomes a person through the body, so the nation becomes a people through the state – The concepts of nation and people are often identified. But from a political point of view, they differ significantly, continuing to be interconnected with each other. A nation, accordingly, is a collectivity with ethnic commonality, which is not connected by general political legal capacity, and a people is a collectivity endowed with political legal capacity, which has general citizenship, that is, the people are the state-forming institution, the constitutive, the source of power and the supreme bearer of power. The Armenian people are the state-forming part of the Armenian nation. The Armenian people are the axis of the people of Armenia. The citizens of the Republic of Armenia, who are representatives of other nations, are also part of the people of Armenia.

2. S. A. – Just as the Soul Does Not Lose Its Essence Without a Body, So Does a Nation Not Cease to Exist Without a State.

The Armenian nation has existed for thousands of years without statehood, has struggled, resisted, created a culture, created a history, and when it did not have a state, it did not lose its collective character. If the Armenian people are the core of the Armenian people , then that core must be UNDISPUTED, UNBREAKABLE and PREDOMINANT . The Republic of Armenia, as an Armenian statehood, cannot be considered multinational, because it is first and foremost the Sovereign State of Armenians . Yes, representatives of other nations live here, who are citizens of the Republic of Armenia, but this does not change the fact that the core and foundation of the state is the Armenian People, Its Language, Its Culture and National Interest .

If we consider the state simply as a multinational entity, it turns into a territorial-civil structure, where the factor of the nation becomes secondary. But for Armenians, the state is not just a legal entity; it is the result of our centuries-old struggle , the home bequeathed by our martyred ancestors .

Armenia is for everyone, but it belongs first and foremost to Armenians .

It is the State that should serve the Nation, not the Nation the State .

3. N. P. – Here is the state, here is bread, here is the homeland, here is the people – The people create a state as an instrument of well-being. The state is the destination of the proverb “where there is bread, there is the one” that periodically storms the Armenian reality, that is, the place where there is bread, because it is the tool with which bread is created, that is, well-being, and therefore, it is there that one should stay. The state is the product of the people’s search for well-being, well-being is a necessary condition for achieving happiness. This perception has been alien to our reality, because for centuries the concepts of homeland, state, and bread have been separated from each other. Bread has been earned in states created by others and/or located in other places, reserving for the homeland the function of an isolated , but place of conservation of cherished traditions and values, turning the wanderings between homeland, state, and bread into a key component of the socio-psychology of our Armenians. The identification of the concepts of bread, homeland, state replaces the concept of “emigrating” from problems, that is, solving the bread problem elsewhere, with the concept of confronting problems and solving them in one’s own state and with one’s own state. In this process, the definition of a standard of well-being (security, freedom, justice, livelihood, happiness), the provision of the necessary conditions for its implementation, the adoption of a strategy, and the realization of the state as a tool for implementing the strategy and the area of implementation of the specified standard are of essential importance. In this context, it is important to note that the state is the best tool for a citizen and the people to determine their own fate, to predetermine their destiny, and the best life for a person is possible only in their own state.

3. S. A. – Where the Armenian Spirit is, There the Home is, There the Heart is, There the Bread Will Remain

The people do not create a state only for bread, but for History, Identity, Culture and Freedom . If only bread were important, then for centuries we would have left our mountains and assimilated into other countries. But we have remained, resisted, preserved our Language, Faith, and Sacredness , because our homeland is not just a “tool for bread”, but the House of Our Spirit .

The mindset of “where there is bread, there you will live” is foreign, but not Armenian . An Armenian can earn bread on foreign soil, but his roots are not cut off . The state cannot replace the homeland, because the homeland is not about land and laws, but about blood, language, heritage and race . When the state truly serves the people, then the Armenian does not leave his country. Where the spirit of the Armenian is with the bread, there is his home .

4. N. P. – Get rich and enrich – Getting rich and enriching are key incentives for establishing public welfare, and this incentive should be placed not in the race for money, but in the logic of competition to create results, developing the individual and the state. Living well should become a rule in the logic of the established standard of well-being and with the understanding that the only tool for living well is to work hard, earn a lot, spend a lot. This applies to both the individual and the state, and both the state and the individual should also be connected by a mutual desire to enrich each other, society, groups, individuals should be united by a mutual desire to enrich each other, also because having an appropriate environment is the most important guarantee of success, from which it follows that the state logic of getting rich and enriching is possible only in an environment of legality, equality of all before the law, justice, and creativity. If working hard in such an environment does not bring much profit, then the work is not productive. If spending a lot does not lead to well-being, then the spending (investment) is not productive. In the above context, it is essential to change the public and individual attitude towards money, in the sense of putting it outside the logic of good and evil and perceiving it as a tool for solving problems and evaluating legitimate work and activities.

4. S. A. – Get rich, but don’t forget who you are

Getting rich and enriching are important, but not the most important thing. For centuries, Armenians have lived not to get rich, but to not get lost, to keep their home and land, to not lose their identity . If “get rich” becomes the main motto of life, then money and material things will become the supreme standard of values, and that thinking is alien to the psyche of us Armenians.

Living well is not a goal, but a result of living rightly . If wealth becomes a goal, then a person is ready to compromise his principles, sell his soul, and enrich those who oppress him in order to get rich . Meanwhile, a free and dignified person first preserves spiritual and national values, and then material ones .

The issue of wealth has never been a priority for an Armenian. The priority is that a person serves the nation with his wealth, not that the nation becomes the instrument of his wealth . Get rich, but first with your mind, dignity, and solidarity , and material things will come as they find their rightful place.

5. N. P. – Man is the highest value. This means that taking care of a person’s primary needs is a priority – The inclusion of talk about bread, money, wealth, and living well in political ideology is unusual for our political life and can be assessed as a devaluation of “high politics”. “Policies based on high values”, however, sometimes lose sight of the highest of values – man, his daily vital needs, his natural desire to live and enjoy life. The peculiarity of this ideology is the practical approach of putting man and his needs at the center, with the understanding that man himself must first of all take care of human needs and state policies should be aimed at providing man with the necessary education, skills, abilities, and knowledge, developing human talent and creating the necessary opportunities and environment for its realization. Spiritual and cultural values are also viewed from this perspective. These values do not have a heavenly meaning, but are an integral part of a person’s vital needs, because a person has both material, everyday, and spiritual-cultural needs, and values are valuable to the extent that they are necessary to motivate a person, make him harmonious, and ensure happiness. In this sense, a person’s national and state identity, national and state values, are important, some of which a person relates to directly, the other part exists for a person as consciousness, as conviction. The ideology of real Armenia is based on the national values of the Armenian people.

Accordingly, the national values of the Armenian people (the Republic of Armenia) are:

– The Republic of Armenia.

– The independence, sovereignty, citizenship, democracy, and army of the Republic of Armenia.

– History of Armenia, Armenian folklore: epic, beliefs, legends, myths.

– Armenian language and script, Armenian literature, including translated literature, knowledge, science.

– The pan-Armenian potential, the Armenian Diaspora.

– Homeland, family, individual.

– Armenian Apostolic Holy Church, Armenian Catholic Church, Armenian Evangelical Church: Christianity.

– Armenian ashugh, gusan, folk, classical, authorial and pop music, Armenian dance, Armenian fine arts, Armenian performing arts, Armenian architecture.

– The native nature, with its biodiversity.

– Progress, love of freedom, self-respect, hospitality, education, hard work, law-abidingness, humanity, respect and tolerance towards other people, nations, and religions.

– Regional affiliation, world civilization, regional, classical and modern culture,

– Fraternal feelings and relations towards the national minorities of the Republic of Armenia and indissoluble unity with them, expressed in citizenship of the Republic of Armenia. Traditions, religions, beliefs of the national minorities of the Republic of Armenia.

– Armenian cuisine, all those samples of tangible and intangible heritage that express, depict, describe or symbolize the above-described national values of the Armenian people (Republic of Armenia).

5. S. A. – Man is the highest value, but without a nation and a state, man is an empty individual

Man is the highest value, but man, in his individuality, without collectivity, nation and state, has nothing to do. He is lost if he does not have his roots, his belonging, his national mission. If the Armenian man becomes simply a seeker of bread and prosperity, he will no longer be an Armenian, but simply a living individual.

Meanwhile, Armenians did not live simply to live. If our ancestors were guided only by material needs, we would have long since been lost in the shadow of other countries. But we have resisted, created, and fought not only for bread, but also for our language, our history, our homeland, and our faith.

The list of national values of the Armenian people is correct, but when they are presented as purely individual “convenience” tools, their meaning is distorted. National values are valuable not only to the extent that they bring happiness to the individual, but because they shape the collective identity, strengthen the national image.

A person’s greatest happiness is not only material security, but also being in their national, spiritual, and collective wholeness.

6. N. P. Armenia is my hearth, the people are my family – The Armenian tradition of the strength of family, extended family ties is a vital resource for strengthening statehood. It is necessary to develop this tradition from the family, clan level to the public-state level, making it relevant to the relations between the individual and the state. The primary concern of an individual before the people and the state is paying taxes, just as the primary concern of each member of each family is the material security of the family. The state budget of the Republic of Armenia is part of the budget of each family. The state budget of the Republic of Armenia spends more funds for the well-being of each family than each family spends for itself. Therefore, just as no one considers unnecessary expenses necessary to meet the needs of his family, so he should not consider the fulfillment of tax obligations to the Republic of Armenia unnecessary. The country’s tax legislation should ensure the collection of funds necessary for the maintenance and development of the state and provide conditions for the formation of greater value added in the economy, for the development of the economy.

6. S. A. – Armenia is my home, but the state cannot be my family

To say that “the people’s primary concern is paying taxes” means to ignore the people’s real primary demands on the state: justice, security, preservation of national identity, prosperity. If the state does not serve these goals, it simply becomes a tax collection machine, not an instrument for the development of the nation.

The state budget cannot be considered part of the family budget. The country’s budget is the management of funds collected from the people, which should serve the interests of the same people, and not the ruling system or the economic elite. If state funds are wasted, if public goods are not distributed fairly, then taxes turn into direct oppression, not the caring hand of the family.

Armenia is our home, but the state should serve to strengthen this home, not demand that the home serve the state. The state should earn the trust of the people, not demand obedience under the pretext of family love. The state is our tool, not our master.

7. N. P. – The future of Armenia depends on one person and that one person is you – Individual effort is a key condition for the development of the state. This condition begins to function effectively only from the moment when the individual realizes the impact of his own effort. The most important function of the state is to value the effort of the individual and create opportunities for its manifestation. This is possible through education. Education is the primary tool for implementing the state’s development strategy, with the understanding that education is a lifelong process and refers to the level of preschool education, general education, vocational education, higher education, postgraduate education, as well as the state’s strategic communication, in the sense that citizen-state relations are educational relations for both the citizen and the state. The education system should teach the student the skills necessary for a prosperous life and happiness. The role of the individual is key in the development of the state, but first of all, it is key in ensuring one’s own well-being and happiness. Building one’s own well-being and happiness is an individual’s primary contribution to ensuring the well-being and happiness of the state.

7. S. A. The future of Armenia does not depend on one person, but on a strong national will

The future of a nation does not depend on the individual: it depends on collective strength, national idea, unity and struggle. When any idea tries to make the future of a nation dependent only on individual effort, it is a dangerous delusion. The individual certainly has an important role, but without a coordinated national and state strategy, individual efforts often remain in vain.

Education should, first and foremost, educate patriotic citizens who realize their responsibility not only for their own well-being, but also for national identity, independence, and security.

And, of course, the future of Armenia does not depend on one person, but on the collective strength of those people who are ready to fight to build a strong state, not just for their personal well-being.

8. N. P. – Happy individual – An individual is happy when he is free, protected, healthy, creative, has a social environment, a beloved job, with the earnings of which he has access to healthy food, a healthy lifestyle, necessary living conditions, travels regularly, is loved, respected, communicates with spiritual life and/or culture. By providing conditions for his own happiness, the individual also creates an environment for the happiness of other individuals and society.

8. S. A. – Happy Armenian Individual – The happiness of an Armenian is not measured by material things and lifestyle. Freedom, protection, health – these are important, but not enough. What makes an Armenian happy is being firmly attached to his roots, the feeling of living gathered around his land, language, faith and family. He is happy when there is peace in the homeland, when his child is useful to the homeland, when his culture flourishes and is passed on to generations.

A happy Armenian individual not only creates his own conditions, but also, through sacrifice, brightens the future of his generations, his culture, and his homeland. He does not seek only his own personal satisfaction, but lives so that his nation may be enduring and victorious.

This is the happiness of the Armenian individual.

9. N. P. – Caring Society – Just as an individual becomes an environment for the formation of a caring society with his success, so society becomes the environment in which the development of the individual takes place. Education, cultural life, work, entrepreneurship, care for the environment, healthy diet and active lifestyle, respect for the law, pluralism, democracy and public unity around it are largely environmental factors or are most effectively manifested in the appropriate environment. The guardian of active entrepreneurship, education from infancy to life, effective governance, democracy, justice, equality before the law for all, and freedom is also society, as an environment built on these values.

9. S. A. – A caring society is formed not only by material conditions and systems, but first and foremost by national self-awareness, mutual assistance, and patriotism.

Society is caring when, first of all, it ensures the national and spiritual upbringing of its children, when education not only provides skills, but also forms a national image, Armenian thinking and responsibility. Culture and art are not just entertainment for an Armenian, but are the breath of identity, the bearer of heritage, on which future generations are educated.

A caring society should not only shape the individual, but above all, a strong nation that will be able to raise its children with dignity, a system of values, and an unwavering faith in the homeland.

This is the caring society befitting an Armenian.

10. N. P. – Strong state – A state is strong to the extent that its economy is developed. Therefore, policies should be aimed at the economic strengthening of the country. The state interest is economic development. This is not a tendency to devalue policies, because public sentiment is considered the most important factor in economic development. Values and commitment to them, culture and education are key factors in motivating the work and economic activity of the individual and society. Value-based policies should be aimed at the development of the country’s economy.

10. S. A. – If the state were strong only in economic indicators, then many rich countries would not be on the verge of decline and destruction.

A strong state worthy of an Armenian is based on justice, solidarity, patriotism, and national unity.

The state’s interest is not only economic growth, but also ensuring a sovereign, secure, dignified, and independent future for the Armenian people. If the state does not have strong ideological and national pillars, then even the most developed economy will not save it from collapse.

A powerful state does not submit to foreign interests, does not sacrifice its sovereignty for economic “benefits.” It protects its land, its values, and the identity of its people, realizing that the ultimate goal of statehood is not the strengthening of the market, but the survival and rise of the Armenian nation.

11. N. P. – Reconstruction is not only shameful, but also a vital necessity – Reconstruction is a key condition for viability. Both the individual and the society and the state must deepen the skill of reflection to the genetic level. The truth that has not been reflected is no longer truth, the goal that has not been reflected is an end in itself, the conviction that has not been reflected is an impression left over from the past, the ideal that has not been reflected is incomplete. The only formula for viability in a changing life is reflection, self-reflection, the ability to change and transform.

11. S. A. – Transformation is not an end in itself and should not be a means of denying values or losing identity. What generations have built, fought for, and defended cannot simply be revised under the name of “modernization.”

Change is necessary, but it must be directed toward empowerment, not toward the loss of national identity, the weakening of Armenian state thinking, or the blind adoption of foreign values. Transformation must be a force coming from within, not a factor imposed from without.

For an Armenian, viability does not mean abandoning one’s roots. It means improving culturally, politically, militarily, and economically, but doing all of that while maintaining a strong national identity.

Transformation worthy of Armenians is a way to strengthen themselves, protect their sovereignty, and continue their historical mission, not to devalue their own past and beliefs under the guise of “reflecting” them.

12. N. P. – Independence is replacing dependence on the few with dependence on the many – The state is the best tool for the people to determine their own fate, to predetermine their destiny, but in order to serve this goal most effectively, the state must be as independent as possible. In an inter-integrated and increasingly inter-integrated world, independence is not only not absolute, but has never been absolute, because states depend on other states in one way or another. Therefore, independent states have been, are and will be those that depend not on the few, but on the many. Therefore, the strategy of independence is the strategy of replacing dependence on the few with dependence on the many. If a state is already dependent on the many, then it must have a problem of depending on more. The goal of a balanced and balancing foreign policy is not to allow disproportions even in dependence on the many. This means not to be equally dependent on everyone, but to balance dependence on one with dependence on the other, but never to be static in that relationship. Balancing is an ongoing process, the need for which is assessed periodically.

12. S. A. – Independence is not a new form of dependence, but the ability to free oneself from dependence, to maintain and protect one’s sovereignty.

The Armenian people have achieved their independence through blood, struggle, and self-determination, not simply by “balancing” dependence. Being independent means having a national will, a strong statehood, a strong economy, a capable army, and a diplomatically sound position that serves exclusively national interests.

Independence worthy of an Armenian is not a “balancing” of dependence, but the ability to act freely without being dictated to by major powers.

Independence worthy of an Armenian is the ability to determine one’s own destiny, maintain sovereignty, and prioritize national dignity.

13. N. P. – Peace is the skill of living in the environment of neighbors without external support – Peace is the ultimate goal of foreign relations. When peace is established, it continues to remain the ultimate goal of foreign relations, expressed in economic, political, and cultural cooperation. Peace is first and foremost a regional factor, because peace or its absence is first and foremost expressed in relations with immediate neighbors, then international, then global. Peace is possible in a strategic and long-term sense when it becomes a skill that must be expressed in the ability to live in the environment of neighbors without external support and in cooperation. Peace is the most reliable guarantee of security. The most important components of ensuring security are the interdependence of the countries of the region, the country’s place in the regional and global supply chain and trade. A capable army is also an essential factor of peace, an essential component of independence and statehood.

13. S. A. – Peace is not a means of survival, but a result of national security, statehood, and sovereignty.

For an Armenian, peace does not mean sacrificing one’s national interests for the sake of “good relations” with one’s neighbors. It cannot be conditioned by coercion or the whims of hostile states.

Peace is possible when a state has strength, a powerful army, strong allies, and the ability to advance its interests. It cannot be built on regional dependencies, because such dependencies mean leaving security in the hands of others. The peace of Armenia must be based on its strength, sovereignty, and self-reliance.

A capable army is the guarantor of peace, not its addition. Security cannot be built without powerful military and state foundations. Armenia’s history has shown that peace is possible only when we ourselves have the ability to impose peace.

This is the peace worthy of Armenians, based on national interests, security, and dignity.

14. N. P. – There is a future, there is a future – The future will come one way or another. And what it will be depends on the ability to perceive yesterday and turn it into knowledge and skills for today’s work. The future is the result of today’s work. The future is today. Start today to be what you want to be in the future.

14. S. A. – The future will not simply “come” – it is being created. And it must be created on the basis of national identity, strengthening statehood, and protecting sovereignty and independence.

The future does not begin with the “perception of yesterday” if that perception is distorted, distorted, or based on foreign ideas. Yesterday is not just the past: it is an experience, a struggle, a victory, a loss, which should become not a subject of abstract “reflection,” but a lesson to further strengthen our statehood.

The future is not built only with knowledge and skills, but with strength, will, faith and vision.

The future is shaped by those who know what they are fighting for, who are ready for sacrifice, resistance, and struggle for the sake of the values that shaped their past.

This is the future worthy of an Armenian

—

CC: The First Polls Are In… …and parties should pay attention.

March 14, 2026March 14, 2026 Hambik Zargarian

· MARCH 13, 2026

Harout Manougian

Manougian.substack.com

There are three months (13 weeks) to go until Armenia’s next election on June 7, 2026. We are entering the critical last stages before political parties need to make their final decisions on whether they will be participating, and whether they will be teaming up with each other into electoral alliances. That deadline is April 23.

The Electoral Threshold

These decisions are important because of the minimum threshold in Armenia’s Electoral Code. A party needs to get at least 4% of the votes cast, or they will be shut out of winning any seats at all. If two or three parties come together to form an electoral alliance, the threshold for them is even higher, at 8% (up from 6% in 2021). If the alliance contains four or more parties, their threshold is a very high 10% (a new category since 2021).

Back when I was providing recommendations for changes to the Electoral Code, my focus was on unwinding its distortions from proportionality. In 2017, 143,203 people (9% of the total) voted for parties that collectively attained zero seats. In Armenia, they say that these votes “poshiatsan”, which can be literally translated as “were pulverized”. It is as if those voters never showed up at all.

In 2021, this phenomenon was even more pronounced. With 25 parties to choose from, and only three receiving any seats, 19.7% of voters chose a party that received no representation at all in parliament; one in five votes were “pulverized”. At that time, the threshold was 4% for parties and 6% for electoral alliances of multiple parties.

My recommendation was to lower the threshold for parties to 3%, but keep the alliance threshold at 6%, to provide an incentive for parties to pursue more permanent consolidation and stop using contrived alliances simply to rebrand for a single election cycle (ex. 2017 “Tsarukyan Alliance” and even 2018 “My Step Alliance”). Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the 2020 Artsakh War, there was less willingness among the ruling Civil Contract Party to unwind the distortions that their predecessors had baked in to the Electoral Code. Prior to the war, they had lowered the threshold for municipal elections from 5% and 7% for parties and alliances, respectively, to 4% and 6%. However, after the war, after 17 political parties issued their joint announcement for Pashinyan’s resignation, the Civil Contract Party used their parliamentary majority to unilaterally adopt the current formula of 4%/8%/10% for future parliamentary elections. That formula would only come into force after the 2021 election, though, so this year will be the first time that it will apply.

Seat Projections

I have seen three polls released relatively recently, asking the question “If the parliamentary election were held next Sunday, which party would you vote for?” It still floors me that, when these poll results are announced, no one else does the math required to translate them into seat projections. So I had to do it myself.

Notably, the three polls suggest drastically different outcomes.

International Republican Institute

The latest poll released is from the International Republican Institute (IRI), an American organization with unofficial ties to the U.S. Republican Party. The poll was conducted between February 3 and 13, 2026, with a sample of 1506 telephone respondents.

TABLE 1. SEAT PROJECTION BASED ON IRI POLL

If you do the required math, the poll results imply that only three parties will make it into parliament, Civil Contract will achieve exactly a two-thirds majority, with Samvel Karapetyan’s Strong Armenia Party and Gagik Tsarukyan’s Prosperous Armenia Party in opposition. Assuming that the Armenian Revolutionary Federation once again participates under the Armenia Alliance, this particular poll suggests that they will not meet the new 8% threshold and will be shut out of parliament. In total, 23% of votes cast will be “pulverized”.

EVN Report

The next poll is from the Armenian Election Study for EVN Report, where I used to work as an editor. EVN Report is a Yerevan-based online magazine. The Armenian Election Study is run by Nerses Kopalyan and Rafael Oganesyan, both from the University of Nevada Las Vegas. The poll was conducted from December 11, 2025 to February 22, 2026, with a sample size of 820 telephone respondents, of which 747 indicated that they will or may vote.

TABLE 2. SEAT PROJECTION BASED ON EVN REPORT POLL

The seat projections arising from this poll have a lot of similarities to what IRI found. Civil Contract comes out ahead with a governing majority, although, in this scenario, it would be characterized as a “false majority”, where they get more than 50% of the seats with less than 50% of the votes. Strong Armenia and Prosperous Armenia form the largest opposition parties, with the Armenia Alliance (again, assuming that they run as an allliance and not as a single party) missing the 8% threshold. However, the results of this poll imply that Arman Tatoyan’s Wings of Unity Party would also exceed the 4% threshold and receive 5 MPs.

MPG/Gallup Armenia

It is worth also including the latest poll from MPG, the Armenian affiliate of Gallup International (which is no longer affiliated with the US-based Gallup Inc.). This poll was conducted a bit further back, from November 7, 2025 to December 5, 2025, with a sample size of 1001 telephone respondents.

TABLE 3. SEAT PROJECTION BASED ON MPG POLL

The MPG poll implies a drastically different seat projection. Here, Civil Contract does not have a majority. The Armenia Alliance does meet the 8% threshold and actually comes out ahead of Strong Armenia. Wings of Unity does not pass the threshold, but Serzh Sargsyan’s Republican Party of Armenia does, along with two new entrants Vardan Ghukasyan’s Democracy, Law and Order (DOK) Party and Gurgen Simonyan’s Meritocratic Party of Armenia.

In this specific scenario, the two smaller parties could hold a lot of sway. Armenia Alliance, Strong Armenia, Prosperous Armenia, and the Republican Party of Armenia would come together to form a post-election coalition (which is different from a pre-election electoral alliance), but that would still only leave them with 52 out of 105 seats, just 1 short of a majority. The DOK Party is a pariah and not an attractive coalition partner (though politics makes strange bedfellows). The Meritocratic Party is anti-Russian and wants Armenia to exit the CSTO and Eurasian Economic Union, which means that it would not join a coalition with the others.

If no majority coalition can come together, there would be a second round election.

Subscribe for free to my substack so you don’t miss a future post explaining how the second round of the election works.

Conclusions

If you are part of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), it would be worth seriously re-evaluating whether the Armenia Alliance brand is worth keeping. The ARF is the main political party in the alliance, with the smaller Syunik-based Resurgent Armenia as a junior partner. However, it also includes many independents, including Robert Kocharyan, with whom the Armenia Alliance brand is closely associated. The ARF has not undertaken any official party primary process.

If you are reading these numbers, it would make the most sense for the members of the Armenia Alliance to form a new alliance that includes Strong Armenia and does not include Kocharyan. They will likely need to form a coalition anyway if they want to unseat Civil Contract. Joining as a pre-election alliance reduces the risk of falling into the 8% threshold trap, and might even help them nab an extra ethnic minority bonus seat (another distortion to proportionality that I advocated reforming).

Samvel Karapetyan started his political movement under the motto “Our Way”, distancing himself from the established parties. For a new alliance to work best, it would have to be seen as the current Armenia Alliance MPs moving toward Karapetyan, and not as Kocharyan announcing a partnership with him.

If such a big-tent opposition coalition were to materialize, Prosperous Armenia and the Republican Party of Armenia would also be wise to join it (though, of course, the egos of their leaders will get in the way). Prosperous Armenia seems on track to pass the 4% threshold, but a lot can happen during a campaign. In 2021, they ended up with 3.95% and thus received zero seats.

Wings of Unity should be very careful. They have announced partnerships with other small parties and movements in the last few months. However, if they participate as an electoral alliance of multiple parties, it would be very difficult to meet the higher 8% threshold. It will be important for them to structure their participation as a single political party. The Electoral Code allows up to 30% of the candidates on a party’s list to be non-members of that party (i.e. either independents, or members of another political party). Thus, if Wings of Unity registers for the election as a single party, they can still include members of their partners while still only being subject to the 4% threshold.

Aram Sargsyan’s Republic Party may once again miss the 4% threshold; they received 3.04% in 2021. They would have a lot to gain from a cooperation agreement with the Meritocratic Party, and to a lesser extent smaller players like Bright Armenia. However, once again, they would have to campaign under a single party banner instead of an official electoral alliance.

—

168: “Aliyev is the leader of a genocidal state”. Lemkin Institute

March 14, 2026March 14, 2026 Emil Lazarian

March: 13, 2026

Statement of the Lemkin Genocide Prevention Institute regarding Aliyev’s recent Holocaust comparison

The Lemkin Institute for the Prevention of Genocide expresses deep concern about the recent remarks of the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, in which he compared Armenian political detainees and prisoners of war to the Nazi leaders convicted in the Nuremberg trials.

In an interview given to France 24 TV channel on February 13, Aliyev said: “The call to release the former leaders of [Nagorno-Karabakh] is the same, even worse. Their crimes are worse than what the Nazis committed in World War II.”

Aliyev then claimed that requests to release Armenian detainees were akin to asking the Allies to release Nazi officials before their sentences.

This statement is particularly dangerous in the context of the Israel-US war of aggression, which has placed Azerbaijan in the position of an important war ally, granting President Aliyev greater impunity than he has enjoyed thus far. Aliyev’s comparison does not reflect historical reality. It distorts it. It makes a weapon.

Aliyev’s comments came just days after his meeting with US Vice President JD Vance, during which Vance raised the issue of releasing Armenian hostages still held by Baku. Aliyev’s comments show his continued disrespect for the US leadership, whose small requests he regularly rejects on behalf of Armenians.

His rhetoric is also a prime example of “mirroring,” a common tactic used by leaders accused of serious violations of international law. Although there is absolutely no credible evidence that any of the Armenians currently held by Baku have committed any crimes, let alone crimes against humanity and genocide (some of them are actually prisoners of war whom Azerbaijan is supposed to return to Armenia in 2020), Aliyev and his government are accused by credible observers and international legal experts, including the Lemkin Institute, of Nagorno-Karabakh. in committed genocide and crimes against humanity.

In September 2023, Azerbaijani armed forces attacked and invaded the Republic of Artsakh, a de facto independent state with a 99 percent Armenian population, resulting in the forced displacement of the region’s entire population of over 100,000 Armenians. Independent experts, including former International Criminal Court prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo, have ruled that Azerbaijan’s previous 10-month blockade and September military offensive demonstrated genocidal intent.

The 127-page report of the Lemkin Institute, “Risk factors and indicators of the crime of genocide in the Republic of Artsakh. Applying the UN Atrocities Framework to the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict’, published on September 5, 2023, discusses in detail Azerbaijan’s genocidal intent towards the Artsakh Armenians. The International Association of Genocide Scholars later also found that Azerbaijan committed acts of genocide against Armenians. As part of its attack, Azerbaijan took hostage many officials of the Artsakh government.

Since then, they have been subjected to inhumane detention conditions and show trials. The Lemkin Institute considers President Aliyev the leader of a genocidal state, one whose institutions are imbued with genocidal ideology, whose policies are shaped by genocidal agendas, and whose genocidal rhetoric serves as an important ballast for domestic legitimacy. President Aliyev institutionalized genocidal Armenian hatred in state bodies and public life.

Until 2023, he often called Armenians “dogs”, “jackals”, “rabbits” and terrorists in public speeches. After the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, he built a “Spoils Garden” in Baku to celebrate Azerbaijan’s supposed victory in the war, which included inhuman wax figures of dead and dying Armenian soldiers with exaggerated, grotesque features that Azerbaijani visitors were encouraged to mock. As one of the most blatantly and relentlessly racist acts of the 21st century, the Spoils’ Garden received some attention and criticism in the Western world, and Azerbaijan was forced to remove the statues.

However, the “Garden of Spoils” remains, as does the genocidal Armenian hatred that shaped it. It seems that the president of Azerbaijan had to tone down his anti-Armenian rhetoric in response to the international community’s green light to invade Artsakh.

Now, instead of shouting slogans, he makes false accusations against the Armenians still under his control and justifies his illegal actions by comparing them to Nazi war criminals and architects of genocide.

The only “crime” committed by the Armenian representatives of the former Artsakh government held in Baku is that they exercised their right to self-determination and tried to protect the Armenian residents of the enclave, whose presence has been there for four thousand years, from Azerbaijani aggression. Unfortunately, world leaders seem all too willing to tolerate the international crimes committed by the now revered genocidal dictator that their appeasement has enabled, even awarding him the honor of hosting COP29 in 2024.

Apart from consistency, President Aliyev’s remarks demonstrate another common and highly effective tactic used by genocidal states: what psychologists call DARVO. deny, attack and retaliate against the victim and the perpetrator. Aliyev denies credible allegations of atrocities. He attacks Armenians as alleged war criminals.

Then he twists reality, presenting Azerbaijan as a real victim and Armenians as a threat to existence. Such rhetoric not only escalates tensions, but also encourages people to consider the genocide justified. Aliyev’s remarks are a dangerous form of genocide denial. With several sentences belittling the Holocaust, he simultaneously denies the destruction of Armenian lives in Nagorno-Karabakh.

He denies responsibility for the mass forced displacement organized by his government. And he unforgivably minimizes the Holocaust, misusing its memory as a cover for his overall genocidal goals in the South Caucasus.

The Holocaust, it must be remembered, was a systematic attempt to destroy European Jewry and is one of the most extensive and comprehensive genocides in human history. Six million Jews were killed by the Nazis, and millions more were killed in the Nazi-started World War. It is impossible for any international crime to be “worse than” the Holocaust, or, in Aliyev’s words, “worse than what the Nazis did.”

Invoking it to justify the continued detention of Armenian prisoners defending their homeland diminishes the Holocaust’s unique history and moral weight. Prevention of genocide requires precision. It prevents leaders from using false comparisons to divert attention from current abuses. The international community must counter President Aliyev’s continued genocidal rhetoric against Armenians and the sovereign Armenian territory in order to ensure clarity in discussions about the genocide. It should not tolerate his genocidal denial.

The continued detention and persecution of Armenian prisoners in Azerbaijan raises serious concerns from the point of view of international humanitarian law. The Third Geneva Convention requires humane treatment and prohibits forced persecution of prisoners of war. Throughout the trial, there were testimonies of torture of Armenian prisoners by the relevant Azeri agencies.

Amnesty International and others have expressed concern about the rights of the captured former leaders of Artsakh, particularly their right to a fair trial. Azerbaijan must either release these detainees or ensure transparent legal processes in accordance with its international obligations. History shows that perpetrators of atrocities often resort to extreme rhetoric to legitimize emergency measures. They portray target groups as criminals, terrorists or enemies of existence. They refer to past traumas, current repressions to justify. They present collective punishment as a moral necessity. Such patterns serve as early warning indicators of further violence.

The Lemkin Institute calls on the government of Azerbaijan to stop its inhumane, genocidal rhetoric against Armenians, to refrain from using the Holocaust to justify its crimes, and to immediately release all Armenian prisoners. Since President Aliyev himself has stated that he will not do this, the international community must put pressure on him to do so. Systematic pressure must be exerted especially on the person of President Aliyev, who relies heavily on the favor of the Western world for his continued power. If the Western world does not act and continues to encourage the president of Azerbaijan, they will face worse problems in the future.

The greater the impunity for President Aliyev, the more he will try to realize his dreams of a “Greater Azerbaijan” that will include the current independent Republic of Armenia. Genocide prevention requires clarity. Leaders who project their actions onto the victims are promoting mass crimes, not fighting them.

They undermine justice, not protect it. The international community should not allow historical memory to be manipulated in the service of ongoing genocidal agendas.

—

Action in Yerevan. “Freedom to Samvel Karapetyan, Freedom to Armenia”

March 14, 2026March 14, 2026 Parkev Tvankchian

March: 13, 2026

—