July 2, 2026
On Saturday, the Constitutional Court will publish the verdict on the appeals regarding the June 7 parliamentary elections.
It is obvious that Nikol Pashinyan’s CC led by Armen Dilanyan will uphold the results of Nikol Pashinyan’s Central Election Commission (CEC) led by Vahagn Hovakimyan and will declare Nikol Pashinyan’s “Civil Pact” as the winning force in the elections.
In this way, Pashinyan’s government, in addition to political “legitimacy”, will also receive legal “legitimacy” and will begin to fulfill all the demands for the implementation of which the preservation of power was tolerated in the most ugly way. The sufferers, that is, the beneficiaries of his power preservation, know very well that Nikol Pashinyan can solve these problems only by having a rigid, monolithic authoritarian power.
That is why, among other illegalities, they also tolerate the fact that the CEC and the CC, as well as the rest of the bodies that are part of the state administration system, have turned into tools for Nikol Pashinyan’s personal use. This is what is called sovereignty in the broadest sense of the term.
The only difference between the monolithic system built by Nikol Pashinyan and the autocracies held in contempt by the so-called civilized world is that at the moment he serves the interests of those who are held in contempt, which is why, unlike, for example, Lukashenko, he is not called a dictator, but a “democratic leader”.
But the situation does not change. Armenia has entered a period of authoritarianism that deepens every day, in which the democratic tools of struggle against the government are no longer functional.
Nikol Pashinyan knows this best, and when he regularly calls on citizens and political forces to carry out a revolution, he simply invites everyone to a public execution, because he knows that the law enforcement system that he owns and obeys will turn any popular outburst into a meat grinder without blinking an eye.
The part of Armenian society that does not tolerate the government, at least 750 thousand people, is no longer on the sidelines, because the means of democratic struggle have practically run out. Naturally, the problem is first and foremost in the field of the opposition parties, not for the sake of getting a vote from the government, but actually for the sake of the state’s political processes, where solutions are not yet visible.
At this moment, as a prerequisite for a solution, one can single out at least the realization of the reality that it is not possible to fight against an authoritarian government with nominal democratic tools, such as elections.
That was the conceptual mistake of the individual opposition parties and the collective opposition, when they all threw themselves into the originally condemned election process with such enthusiasm that Nikol Pashinyan, who lacks legitimacy, distributes positions among his own puppets today.
Harutyun Avetisyan
—
Some reforms, after meeting the necessary elements, we can proceed with the visa
July 2, 2026
“Visa liberalization just needs some reform steps, if it is completed, you will choose the finish line,” European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen said today during a joint press conference with Pashinyan in the RA Government, referring to the terms of the visa liberalization process.
He mentioned that Armenia is the only partner country that is currently in an active visa liberalization dialogue with the EU. According to him, this already shows the level of RA-EU partnership.
“We published a progress action plan report in April, we know that you are committed to that agenda, we thank you for that, it is impressive to see that progress, and we know how important it is for the Armenian people. A new evaluation mission will arrive this fall to assess progress and progress.
This is a process that is guided by the conquest of certain elements. You are on a good path, you are working, I know it, after meeting all the necessary elements, we can go to the visa-free regime. It’s just that some reform steps are needed, if it ends, you will choose the finish line,” said Ursula von der Leyen.
—
The CP limits by law the electoral right guaranteed by the Constitution
July 2, 2026
Finally, the “Civil Agreement” put into circulation in the National Assembly the drafts on making additions to the “Electoral Code of the Republic of Armenia” constitutional law and amending the “Referendum” constitutional law, with which CP members propose to establish a new condition for the realization of the right to participate in the elections and referendums of the National Assembly.
The motives for bringing such a project into the field are clear. As a priority, it was necessary to fix in some way during the campaign for the next parliamentary elections and after that the political talk of the CP members and, in particular, of Nikol Pashinyan, that people were forcibly brought to Armenia by some forces of the opposition to vote for them. The second is to have a more manageable and accountable electorate when holding a referendum based on one’s own political agenda, because the last elections showed to what extent the ruling power turns to the “support” of administrative resources.
Thus, only those citizens who have actually been in the Republic of Armenia for at least 183 days during the 365 days preceding the voting will have the right to vote and participate in the referendum. In the case of regular elections of the National Assembly, this circumstance will be calculated as of the 48th day preceding the election day, and in the case of extraordinary elections, as of the 28th day.
The drafts envisage only limited exceptions, only for cases where the citizen’s absence was due to public service or studying abroad at a higher educational institution. In other cases, the proposed regulation may deprive citizens permanently or temporarily living abroad, as well as those absent from Armenia for work, health, family, business or other personal reasons, from the right to vote. No regulation is intended for those cases, if, for example, an RA citizen is abroad for long-term treatment or participation in sports training and tournaments.
However, the proposed regulation contradicts the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia on several independent grounds.
Part 1 of Article 48 of the RA Constitution clearly states that RA citizens who have turned 18 on the day of the National Assembly election or referendum have the right to vote and participate in the referendum. This provision stipulates two and only two conditions for the exercise of the right to vote: the person must be a citizen of the Republic of Armenia and must have reached eighteen years of age on the day of the election or referendum.
In other words, this article does not contain any requirement of residence, registration, or actual presence in the Republic of Armenia. Therefore, the Constitution links the right to participate in National Assembly elections and referendums exclusively to citizenship and age.
Meanwhile, the drafts add a third to these two constitutional conditions, the requirement of actually staying in the Republic of Armenia for at least 183 days during the previous 365 days.
The proposed amendments actually define a new material precondition for the exercise of the right to vote, which is not provided for by the Constitution. If the framer of the constitution had the intention of linking the right to vote with a certain period of stay in the Republic of Armenia, he would have included such a requirement in the text of the Constitution itself, as he did in other parts of the same article.
The systematic interpretation of the Constitution also shows that such an additional condition cannot be established by law.
A logical question may arise here, why, for example, to be elected as a member of the National Assembly, a requirement of permanent residence in the Republic of Armenia for the last 4 years has been established, but not just to have the right to vote. This difference is not accidental.
The deliberate inclusion of the residence requirement in Article 48, Part 2, and its absence in Article 48, Part 1, prove that the constitution maker intended such a requirement only for passive, but not active, suffrage. Therefore, this deliberate choice of the constitution cannot be canceled by the ordinary legislator.
The legislator cannot change the electoral right defined by the Constitution
The structure of the Constitution also proves that in the case of national elections and referendums, the conditions of electoral rights are defined by the Constitution itself and are exhaustive. In contrast to the elections of local self-government bodies, where a significant scope of regulation is reserved for the legislator, in the case of the National Assembly elections, such authority is not provided. This means that the legislature has not been given any residual discretion to set additional material conditions for the right to vote or participate in the referendum.
The grounds for disenfranchisement are also exhaustive
Part 4 of Article 48 of the Constitution defines the exhaustive list of cases when a person cannot vote, be elected or participate in the referendum. Such are the persons declared incompetent by the court’s legally binding judgment and the persons convicted and serving a sentence for a serious crime committed with intent.
Not being in the Republic of Armenia or being absent from the country is not included in that list. Therefore, any additional restrictions on the right to vote can be established only when there is a direct constitutional basis for it.
The project goes beyond the framework defined by Articles 75 and 80 of the Constitution
Article 75 of the Constitution allows the laws to establish organizational structures and procedures necessary for the effective implementation of fundamental rights. At the same time, Article 80 of the Constitution stipulates that the essence of the provisions on fundamental rights and freedoms is inviolable. However, the proposed drafts do not establish new organizational or procedural mechanisms for the exercise of electoral rights.
They condition the constitutional right to vote and participate in the referendum with a new material precondition, which is not provided by the Constitution. As a result, the legislator interferes not with the procedure of exercising the right, but with its content, which is beyond the scope of the powers assigned to him by the Constitution.
The Venice Commission standards also adopt the same approach
International standards also do not support the proposed approach. The Venice Commission’s Code of Conduct in Electoral Matters stipulates that the requirement of residence or length of stay in the country to participate in elections can only be applied in the case of local or municipal elections. The same approach is also fixed in the revised code of the commission on referendums, according to which such requirements are not applicable in the case of national referendums, and the conditions for citizens living abroad cannot be stricter than in the case of elections.
It is obvious that the CP government is not confident in its public support, and instead of solving the electoral competition at the polling station, it does it by narrowing the circle of voters.
And when an attempt is made to limit the electoral right guaranteed by the Constitution by ordinary law, it is already an attempt to put political expediency above the constitutionality. The main right to vote, guaranteed to all adult citizens by the constitution, is openly restricted by the CP government, not having any constitutional authority for it.
—
Ashot Danielyan submitted his resignation to the National Assembly of the Republic of Artsakh
July 2, 2026
The Chairman of the National Assembly of the Republic of Artsakh, Ashot Danielyan, made a statement, in which it is said:
“Dear compatriots,
After long deliberations, discussions and consultations of the last few days, I have decided to resign from the post of the President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Artsakh.
This decision was not easy for me. I did not assume this position on May 21, 2025 out of personal interest, political ambition or desire to hold a position.
My goal in assuming the position was not to leave the issue of maintaining state institutions in a state of limbo, especially at a time when the continuity of Artsakh’s state structures, the political voice of our people and the protection of rights were facing a serious threat.
Every decision and action of mine was aimed at one goal: to protect the rights of the people of Artsakh and preserve the continuity of statehood in the conditions of the new reality created in the Republic of Armenia.
All this time, I was guided exclusively by national interests and responsibility towards our people.
My family’s connection with Artsakh was never formal. My father gave his life for the survival of Artsakh Republic. Our family paid the most expensive price for Artsakh: the price of human life.
After the forced displacement, when we arrived in Armenia, I could, like many, focus only on my family, start a new life, a new job and provide for our tomorrow. That would be a much easier way for me.
But I chose not the easy one, but the obligatory one. I took on this burden, realizing that at the most difficult moment, someone should continue to bear the state responsibility, protect the rights of the people of Artsakh and preserve the idea of Artsakh statehood. I could not allow the issue of maintaining the state institutions to remain in a state of disrepair in the difficult conditions created.
In many cases, those who were ready to take any step to get a position in the good days of Artsakh were not by my side on that road. When the position was opportunity, influence and privilege, there were many who wanted it. When it became a struggle, pressure, heavy responsibility and personal sacrifice, many simply left.
I never aspired to a position. I stayed and continued to fight because I felt obliged both to the memory of my father, to our people, and to Artsakh.
However, the false and artificial rumors, groundless accusations and slanders that have been circulating about my person in the recent period also influenced the making of this decision. I do not want the targeted campaign against my person to in any way cast a shadow on the reputation of the Republic of Artsakh, its state institutions and the National Assembly.
When the necessary unity and shared responsibility are lacking, one or more people cannot continuously carry the entire burden. Therefore, this decision is also a conscious step to protect the state structure from personal speculations and artificially created antagonisms. Therefore, I submit my resignation from the post of the President of the National Assembly of the Republic of Artsakh.
This resignation does not mean resignation from Artsakh. It does not mean giving up the protection of the rights of our people and the struggle for which our family has already paid with the price of their lives. The position is temporary. Artsakh, the pain of our people, the memory of our heroes and the debt to them is permanent.
I express my gratitude to all those people, deputies and colleagues who have remained beside their responsibility and national goals during this entire time.
I am sure that the will of our people cannot be broken. The issue of Artsakh cannot be considered closed as long as there is a people with rights to their homeland, as long as there is a demand for return, and as long as the memory of our fallen heroes obliges us not to surrender.
I am sure that the National Assembly and all state institutions will continue their activities, remaining steadfast on the path of protecting the rights of our people and realizing national goals.
Glory to our homeland.
Glory to the heroes who sacrificed their lives for Artsakh.
Honor our people.”
—
TRIPP, an object of geopolitical bargaining? What is Russia up to?
July 2, 2026
Armenian-Russian relations are at the most critical stage of their post-Soviet history, where diplomatic coolness can turn into confrontation.
The “silence” established in relations since June 7, the indifference shown to bilateral official contacts, high-level phone calls and each other’s political agendas, seems to have been softened by the Armenian side today. According to the message of the Russian Government, a telephone conversation between Pashinyan and Mishusti took place at the initiative of the Armenian side.
This was the first Armenian-Russian high-level phone call after the parliamentary elections held in Armenia. According to the announcement of the RA government, the interlocutors discussed agenda issues of Armenia-Russia cooperation, which related to the trade-economic, scientific-technological and cultural-humanitarian spheres. By the way, it is noteworthy that the Russian side did not congratulate Pashinyan on his re-election, even though the issues related to violations in the elections continue to be discussed in the CC.
The other day, talking about his visit to Moscow and the elections, which he announced on June 1, Pashinyan said that there was no scheduled meeting, and that there will be contacts with the Russian side in the near future.
Perhaps Pashinyan meant the telephone conversation with Mishustin. Pashinyan answered the question: Is a meeting planned within the EAEU session to be held in August? “There is a meeting of the intergovernmental council and the prime ministers are participating, the presidents are not.”
In other words, the Russian President will not participate in the August meeting, but Mishustin will. Therefore, if the Russian side does not congratulate Pashinyan at the highest level even after the completion of the legal processes in the RA CC, the situation in Armenian-Russian relations will become unprecedented. All this will prove that the relations are not experiencing a temporary crisis, but have faced serious problems. The threatening rhetoric coming from Moscow, the harsh application of economic levers, and the public dissatisfaction with Yerevan’s foreign policy actions show that the Kremlin has switched to an openly intolerant policy regarding Armenia’s foreign policy orientation.
Along with all this, remarkable announcements are being made from Russia. Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Mikhail Galuzin stated that the TRIPP project will pass through the territory, the security of which is ensured by the Russian and Armenian border guards, so Yerevan will have to take Moscow’s position into account in any case. He noted that Russia’s participation would only benefit the project.
“Trump’s route” will pass through the zone guarded by the Russian border guards, who have been serving for decades together with their Armenian colleagues in the direction of protecting the borders of Armenia, Turkey and Iran. Therefore, in one way or another, it will be necessary to take into account the opinion of Russia, it will also be necessary to take into account the opinion of the Eurasian Economic Union. That is why we believe that Russia’s participation would only benefit the project,” he said.
He also specified: “Transit through the territory of Armenia, by the way, if we are talking about the Eurasian Economic Union, should be carried out in accordance with the norms and rules of the Eurasian Economic Union, from which Armenia, as it declares, does not want to leave.”
RA Deputy Foreign Minister Mnatsakan Safaryan also said yesterday in a conversation with “Azatutyun” radio station that at the moment TRIPP is being implemented in the RA-US format, an agreement has been signed and it is in the process of implementation. The deputy foreign minister, answering the question whether the effectiveness of TRIPP from Moscow without the Russian side is being questioned, is Moscow’s involvement in TRIPP in any format acceptable for official Yerevan or can it be discussed in the future, he also emphasized. “I didn’t want to say anything about the future at this time.”
Mnatsakan Safaryan noted that at the moment the Republic of Armenia is a member of the EAEU, and the transit rules are based on the EAEU regulations, so he hinted that the TRIPP will be based on the EAEU regulations. “The EAEU customs regulations are carried out by our customs bodies, so we don’t see a question there,” stressed the deputy foreign minister.
The statements of the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Mikhail Galuzin regarding the TRIPP project are not accidental. Galuzin, using the theme of Russian-controlled border and infrastructure leverage, directly implies that any transportation project in Armenia without Moscow’s “dabro” or direct participation is doomed to uncertainty.
This approach of Moscow, of course, has a clear goal: to return the lost control over regional communications. The Russian side’s arguments about EAEU norms, the width of railway lines and border security actually show Russia’s desire to participate in TRIPP. RA Deputy Foreign Minister gave a cautious response to another Russian assertion of this content.
However, there is a subtle question hidden here: is it possible for the parties to make a “big bargain” on this issue in a situation where Russia is putting pressure on the RA authorities, raising the issue of withdrawing Armenia from the EAEU in case of the continuation of Armenia’s European integration agenda?
In this situation, it is possible that Galuzin’s statement is an invitation to negotiate on this issue. Moscow can eliminate the economic restrictions, the tough position on the EAEU issue towards RA, if the RA authorities provide the Russian side with technical participation in TRIPP. If Russia’s participation in TRIPP is ensured in any way, it can become the point that will soften the current acute crisis of Armenian-Russian relations.
With pressure, Moscow is trying not only to solve the issue of RA’s foreign policy, but also to strengthen it if possible. And TRIPP can be one of the options.
The Kremlin is not only trying to curb Yerevan’s foreign policy orientation towards the West, but is also looking for security and economic tools with which it will be possible to maintain its influence in the region. For Yerevan, the problems in the Russian direction are complicated: will the small cooperation on TRIPP become a means of de-escalation of relations, will Moscow accept the small cooperation, at the same time, it is unlikely that the RA authorities actively cooperating with the West will give more leverage to Russia in TRIPP and find themselves dependent.
After all, no matter how deep the factors of the bilateral crisis are, judging by the statements, Russia seems to be preparing for negotiations at this stage.
—
This is a bitter pill… Here, swallow it. Vahe Davtyan, Ursula von der Leyen’s Yerevan
July 2, 2026
Doctor of political sciences, professor, energy security expert Vahe Davtyan writes. “Von der Leyen announced in Yerevan that the EU is ready to support Armenia in case of possible problems related to gas supplies.
The President of the European Commission referred to the rich experience of solving similar problems in Moldova and Ukraine.
Not a bad series, of course.
Moldova, a country that is ready to become part of another state under the name of European integration.
Ukraine, a state stuck in a long war with huge human, territorial and economic losses.
This is not even candy with which they are trying to tempt Armenia. This is a bitter pill. Here, swallow it. As “success stories” for Armenia, states that are themselves in severe crises are presented.
I have a few questions regarding possible support from Brussels. Rhetorical.
1. How long can this support be provided? Short-term subsidies, allocation of grants for solving current problems, maybe not bad. However, it is unlikely that they will solve the issue of ensuring energy security at the systemic level.
2. According to von der Leyen, the EU will also support Armenia in the field of renewable energy. This, of course, is positive, but it is not enough for stable energy supply. RE plants, unlike CHPs and NPPs, have a low installed capacity utilization factor. If it were possible to ensure energy security through RE development, many European countries would not maintain gas generation and would not return to nuclear energy.
3. How to deal with the Armenian gas transport system, which, by the way, is not actually entirely Armenian. A change of ownership? It is unlikely that Brussels means such radical steps by support. Therefore, regardless of the support, the 100% ownership of GTR of Armenia to “Gazprom” remains an important, if not a key factor in the energy reality of the republic.
4. How is geography in the European Commission? Next to Moldova is Romania as a “metropolis” that supplies it with natural gas. Ukraine receives gas in reverse flows, also from Europe. In other words, the EU’s energy support to Moldova and Ukraine has clear geographical bases.
In the case of Armenia, the alternatives are very limited. It is noteworthy that Von der Leyen arrived in Yerevan immediately after his visit to Baku.”
—
Armenian SSR. the reaction of Khrushchev’s report at the XX congress and “de-Stalinization
July 2, 2026
On June 30, 1956, the publication of the decision of the CPSU Central Committee “On Overcoming the Cult of the Individual and Its Consequences” in the USSR, which was based on Khrushchev’s anti-Stalinist, so-called “secret” at the XX Congress of the CPSU (February 25, 1956) on the report, caused an outbreak of “unofficial” anti-Soviet sentiments in some national republics.
It is widely known about the mass protests and demonstrations that took place in Georgia, but much more little known About the secret discontent prevailing in Armenia, which was primarily caused by the Stalinist leadership’s “Turkey” in the first years after the warn: for “unsubstantiated ambitions” on May 30, 1956 with the apology of the USSR government.
Let’s remind that in 1945, in the Georgian and Armenian press, obviously with the knowledge of Moscow was discussed The idea of restoring the land border with Turkey along the lines that existed after the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-1878 and before the peace of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918).
The publications of Armenian and Georgian historians talked about the need to return the regions of Kars, Ardahan, Ardvin, Surmalu, Childir Lake and Great Ararat (more than 24 thousand sq. km) to the USSR, which were handed over to Turkey in 1918-1920, including the partially occupied ones, which was legally fixed by the 1921 treaties of Kars and Moscow with Kemal Turkey.
In the first post-war years, as part of the repatriation program, emigrants from the Middle East arrived in Armenia, among whom there were many descendants of the Abdulhamid “Zulum” from Western Armenia, the Young Turk Genocide and the massacres of the initial period of the “national-liberation struggle” led by Mustafa Kemal Pasha, as well as participants of the national-liberation struggle of the end of the 19th century and the first quarter of the 20th century.
The illegal nationalist groups in the Armenian SSR, which were infiltrated, including activists from foreign branches of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, were distributing pamphlets, the meaning of which came down to the fact that by rejecting the Stalinist legacy, the Soviet government allegedly finally refuses to restore at least partial justice in the “Armenian issue” (including the border issue).
until then 1953 datein late 1954datein the middle of, were spreading in a number of cities, including Yerevan and Leninakan “real Armenian SSR», which included some areas of historical Western Armenia (Eastern Anatolia).՝ including Kars Marz and Surmalu Province with Mount Ararat, which were included in 1878-1918 R:in the composition of the student empire.
According to available information, signatures were illegally collected in Armenia in mid-1956 in support of the aforementioned pro-Talin speeches in Georgia (Tbilisi, Gori, Batum) in March 1956. The demands to return the historical territories transferred to Turkey in 1918-1921 to the Caucasian republics were not forgotten either, although for the time being they were mostly expressed in a semi-legal form.
Gradually, nationalist sentiments made themselves felt. Thus, on October 12, 1955, riots took place in Yerevan after a friendly football match between Yerevan “Spartak” and the Sverdlovsk District Officers’ House team.
The Armenian footballers lost 1:2, prompting protests against the seemingly biased refereeing of the game, which soon took on nationalist and anti-Soviet overtones. Accusations of “betraying the radical interests of Armenians” were directed at the Soviet-Armenian militia, which was trying to calm down the protesters: “perish the traitorous militiamen of the Armenian people”, “where are our legal borders with Turkey?”, etc.
Already on November 7, 1955, the underground anti-Soviet “Leninets” organization, consisting mainly of young and middle-aged people (Yerevan, Leninakan, Kirovakan), began to announce itself. Its activists distributed anti-Soviet leaflets with the signature “true builders of Leninism”. But soon those members of that group were arrested, tried, some of them were expelled from Transcaucasia.
In April and July 1956, joint meetings of the party members and the local committee union were held at Yerevan University, in which “nationalist views, calls for the restoration of historical Armenia were observed.”
Later, these tendencies gradually strengthened along with the development of Soviet-Turkish relations, participation in which the leadership of the Armenian SSR literally “avoided”. Thus, in 1963, 41 anonymous anti-Soviet documents – 25 leaflets and 16 open letters – were distributed in the republic, almost three times more than in 1955-1956.
And in 1964, 686 facts of preparation and distribution of anonymous anti-Soviet documents were recorded in Armenia: 105 letters and 581 leaflets. In them, the Soviet leadership was also criticized for the “alliance with Turkey”.
1965 thevowel the mass demonstrations in Yerevan in April, the mass massacres of the Armenian population in Ottoman Turkey during the First World War and: on the half-century anniversary of the beginning of the deportations, left a certain impression on the Soviet leadership, which satisfied some of the demands of the Armenian society. On November 29, 1967, the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial was opened, dedicated to the memory of the victims of the Armenian Genocide.
Little is known that 1965 thevowel At the end of January, a group of 16 famous Georgian intellectuals, supported by 14 figures of Armenian culture and science, appealed to the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee and the leadership of the Council of Ministers of the USSR. “…not to make assurances that the Soviet side has no territorial demands from Turkey during the expected visit of the Soviet government delegation to the Republic of Turkey.”
However, the delegation in Ankara declared that it was loyal to the aforementioned apologies of the USSR to Turkey on May 30, 1953 (see also: РГАНИ, Ф. 89. П. 2. Д. 6; Ф. 5. Op. 58. Д. 19; Ф. 5. Op. 67. Д. 82; “Вести из СССР: права ч еловека”, Munich, 1980, No. 10).
Petitionable campaigns and: no formal of activism other the forms, although more little intensity, continued also next շրջանում՝ gradually moving Mountainous Karabakh connection for struggle kfocal point, whose about a lot citizens they found out Soviet of the Union at sunset՝ 1988 year in February.
National orientation having from groups մեկի՝ underground «United national party» (1967-1987the.) some participants be included are 1990 thevowel Ashot Navasardyan created by Republican party make up, whose ideological the basis became Garegin Take it down the teaching:
2006 thevowel in July place had party 10-th emergency the congress of Armenia Republican the party proclaimed national conservative party, whose president became RA: third president Serge Sargsyan (2008-2018the.):
2018 thevowel spring «velvet of the revolution» of events as a result of the government boss became Nicole: Pashinyan and his the team, which ones adopted h:oh national–cultural of identity radical transformation and: From Russia leaving former Armenian: SSR within limits “Nofourth Republic» construction route and: at the most friendly relationship saveeating neighbor Azerbaijan and: Turkey with (of Ankara and: Baku terms)։
of Armenia Republican the party prudently refused June 7-in: parliamentary to the elections from participating, which ok is characterization how his popularity level, so email 1991 from after «Third Republic» national–State of the project evolution:
ALEXEY CHERRYAND:
vpoanalytics.com
Translation by Zhanna Avetisyan
—
Visible and invisible aspects of new personnel changes. Who won, who lost?
July 2, 2026
July 1 staff changes and new appointments were in the Ministry of Defense and the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia, in the context of which we will look at several episodes.
Based on the recommendation of RA Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, RA President Vahagn Khachaturyan signed a decree: Artsrun Hovhannisyan to appoint the head of the Defense National Research University of the Ministry of Defense.
General Albert Baghdadyan, who was in that position until now, was appointed there in November 2024, and in May of the same year had become a general. And today we learned that General Suren Papikyan appointed advisor to him.
And Artsrun Hovhannisyan’s personnel promotion is not at all surprising, if we take into account that in such cases, the “dobro” of the political leadership is a decisive factor, here we are not even discussing or evaluating or underestimating his professional abilities. But as always, at least today they do not play a big role in achieving professional goals.
In the case of Artsrun Hovhannisyan, we are sure that occupying the position of the head of the National Defense Research University of the Ministry of Defense was one of the important goals, as well as becoming the head of the Department of Military Science and Education Policy of the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia, but the management of this department was entrusted to someone else some time ago, especially when in 2020-2021. for a short time he was the head of the education department of the main department of personnel and military education policy. Moreover, for example, the RA Ministry of Defense V. Sargsyan Military Academy there was a second return to the command and staff faculty.
On the other hand, it is possible that Nikol Pashinyan-Anna Hakobyan will become a couple sponsorship Vayelogh Hovhannisyan could have been appointed to the position of the head of the National Defense Research University of the Ministry of Defense earlier, but there were objective and subjective “disturbing” circumstances.
And now they may no longer exist, Artsrun Hovhannisyan has “won” under the patronage of the political leadership. And to what extent there are or are not losers in this case, we cannot say, but one thing is clear: the actual violations of the political neutrality of the acting officer Artsrun Hovhannisyan, for example, forced us to constantly send requests RA Defense Minister Suren Papikyan, that is, the Minister of Defense was targeted, willy-nilly or not.
Moreover, Suren Papikyan was publicly “spoiled” by the Russian Ambassador to Armenia, but the Minister of Defense related to the relations between the two countries. did not discuss public
It should be noted that Artsrun Hovhannisyan decided to break myths about the Great Patriotic War on the air of Public TV.
We also wrote that by the decision of Nikol Pashinyan and the SNOC subordinate to him, Artsrun Hovhannisyan performed the duties of the representative of the RA Ministry of Defense during the 44-day war, despite the fact that the Minister of Defense had a press secretary.
And then he worked as an expert in Andranik Kocharyan’s National Defense and Security Standing Committee, that is, also in the investigative committee of the 44-day trial, being an interested party, because he was responsible for the transmitted war information, where there were contradictions with reality. Of course, he has the answer to that: he told what the General Staff of the RA Armed Forces told him, and it’s nothing that he was in person several times in Artsakh during the hot moments of the war.
After the war, Artsrun Hovhannisyan never tried in the context of the war save Nikol Pashinyan’s political face, even confirming his thesis of being a “5th column” or not.
Anyway, let’s continue the topic of personnel changes mentioned above and note that Major General Simon Nazaryan was appointed the commander of the 2nd Army Corps of the RA Armed Forces, being released from the position of the commander of the 3rd Army Corps. At the time of writing, there was no new appointment to the position of commander of the 3rd Army Corps.
And? RA national hero, Major General Garegin Poghosyan email has been appointed Commander of the Special Army Corps. He held this position until now General Armen Gyozalyan, today RA Minister of Defense Suren Papikyan appointed him as Deputy Head of the Military Control Service of the Ministry of Defense.
And in the position of chief, according to the website of the Ministry of Defense, a general This is Karen Shakaryan, who was an official for a long time, and who participated in one of the liturgies “invited” by Pashinyan.
The problem is that Jalal Harutyunyan’s authority as the head of the military control service of the Ministry of Defense was suspended, and there was no release order or public announcement about it.
By the way, according to “Publication” According to the source of the daily newspaper’s prison, the probation service reviewed the conditions of detention of Jalal Harutyunyan: it is an open regime, which means to leave the prison, work, etc.
And by the order of the President of RA on July 2, from the position of commander of the Special Purpose Forces released Levon Davidyan, was appointed in November 2024.
By the way, as absurd as it sounds, his name was circulating in the context of anti-gunners. If it is so and if another position is not entrusted, it will mean that there are cases that such efforts are put aside by the authorities at some point.
And finally, yesterday to his position said goodbye Head of the Department of Armaments and Technical Support of the Ministry of Defense Hamlet Levonian.
And no matter how popular his release is on the social network level or even in the press of the video with, which is not so new, and we still have to understand why, as it “entered” the Internet, we do not rule out the existence of any problem within the authority of the department itself.
After the military parade on May 28, this specific release may not give rise to various doubts, at least it does not speak of something very good, especially when about two years ago, the Department of Armaments left From the General Secretary to the Ministry of Defense.
On one occasion in the context of these and other structural changes we wrote, that Pashinyan put the Minister of Defense at risk. Maybe Suren Papikyan doesn’t think so at the moment. Time will tell who is right. And at the time of writing the article, two important defense positions were still vacant: the head of the Department of Armaments and Technical Support of the Ministry of Defense and the commander of the Special Purpose Forces.
—
The new game of the European Union in the South Caucasus. What messages did Ursula Von have?
July 2, 2026
The South Caucasus tour of Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, has ended. The visits to Baku and Yerevan on July 1-2 actually confirmed that the European Union is moving to a much more practical and practical policy in the South Caucasus, adopting a strategy of economic and infrastructural integration of the region.
If in previous years the main priority of Brussels was the mediating role in the Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiation process, now the EU has moved on to the promotion of specific projects, the strategy of connecting the region to the EU, integrating it and completely removing it from Russian influence. The statements made in Baku and Yerevan once again showed that the EU views the region as a corridor connecting Europe with the Black Sea, the Caspian Basin and Central Asia. That is why von der Leyen emphasized the idea that peace is a necessary condition for economic and geopolitical investments. “We need to move peace from paper to real life,” he announced in Baku, presenting the “Peace through Connectivity” initiative.
Azerbaijan, as a regional connecting node, was at the core of the European Commission president’s messages in Baku. Von der Leyen announced a grant program of up to €200 million to boost transport, energy and digital connectivity, further attracting up to €2 billion in public and private investment. He spoke about the development of the port of Baku, railway communication in the direction of Nakhichevan, regional channels of the South Caucasus and even the possibility of electric power infrastructures passing through Armenia. At the same time, von der Leyen highly appreciated Azerbaijan’s role in Europe’s energy security, reminding that “when Russia turned energy into a weapon, Azerbaijan helped Europe.” This was a key impulse, Brussels reaffirmed that Azerbaijan remains one of the key energy partners of the EU.
In Yerevan, however, the emphasis was different. The primary topic here was not energy, but Armenia’s economic resilience and integration with European markets in the face of Russia’s economic pressures. Von der Leyen openly stated that Armenia can “rely on the European Union”, stressing that Brussels is ready to support Yerevan in mitigating the impact of Russian economic restrictions.
In that context, financial support for Armenia was announced, as well as the initiative to eliminate customs duties on around 80 percent of Armenian exports. Von der Leyen specially emphasized that it is not only about financial aid, but about changing the economic direction of Armenia through integration into the European economic system.
He noted that the EU is ready to support not only economic diversification, but also energy diversification, stressing that the EU has rich experience in such matters, which it has accumulated through the examples of Ukraine and Moldova. Therefore, according to him, EU experts will arrive in RA and study the issues on the spot. He also spoke about energy, linking it to the region.
If the two visits are considered as a whole, and they are clearly within the scope of one agenda, it becomes obvious that the European Union is trying to build a new geopolitical architecture of the South Caucasus. In that EU project, Armenia and Azerbaijan are considered not as separate partners, but as components of one regional system.
It is this political, transport and energy connectivity that will enable the EU to implement the communication, energy and digital projects planned within the framework of the “Global Gateway”. By the way, the EU recently launched the “Connectivity Agenda Platform” initiative, which was created in order to strengthen the connectivity agenda between the South Caucasus, the Black Sea region, Turkey and Central Asia and promote the interregional connectivity agenda within the framework of the EU’s “Global Gateways” strategy.
In other words, the EU strives to form a unified logistics axis, which will gradually reduce the importance of traditional communication routes passing through the territory of Russia and increase the European presence in the region.
The Russian factor was not absent from these visits. Although it was presented differently in the two capitals, it was actually the context of the entire visit. In Baku, von der Leyen reminded that Europe was able to reduce its dependence on Russian gas during the energy crisis thanks to Azerbaijan, and in Yerevan he already spoke about Russia’s economic pressures and the EU’s willingness to compensate for this impact.
Thus, Brussels solves several geopolitical problems at the same time. And it does it in a rather fast and intense mode. Therefore, von der Leyen’s visit should be considered not only as an initiative to promote Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, but also as part of the European Union’s long-term competitive strategy aimed at limiting Russia’s influence in the South Caucasus.
The European Union is starting to act in the region not as a classic mediator, but as an investor and economic actor. Thus, the visits on July 1-2 can be evaluated as the start of the new South Caucasus strategy of the European Union, where the EU starts the programs that have been talked about for years.
However, the viability of these initiatives remains conditional, as their implementation is at the center of a clash of interests between Russia, Iran and the US, where every geopolitical shift can change the rules of the game. Ultimately, the future of the South Caucasus depends not only on European ambitions, but also on the balance of China’s economic expansion and the calculations of other actors, which turn the region into a difficult point of confrontation.
—
Andranik Kocharyan’s son was invited to a training camp, it turned out that he is not subject
July 2, 2026
In January 2026, the Government of the Republic of Armenia decided the schedule of the training sessions of the reservists of the first and second ranks of the first group of reservists, non-commissioned officers and officers:
1. From February 3 to April 10, 2026 inclusive,
2. From March 31 to June 19, 2026 inclusive,
3. From April 15 to July 15, 2026 inclusive,
4. 2026 year June 9-from until August 14-the inclusive,
5. From August 4 to October 9, 2026 inclusive,
6. From September 15 to December 15, 2026 inclusive,
7. From September 29 to November 20, 2026 inclusive.
In other words, immediately after the day of the National Assembly elections, the next round of training sessions started. And in those days, there were reports that notices were being actively sent to opposition circles, including journalists, who came from Russia for the election. RA Defense Minister Suren Papikyan had confirmed noting this.
«How can I rule it out? A citizen of the Republic of Armenia coming from Russia is a soldier, doesn’t he have any duties towards his homeland? Naturally, I cannot rule it out. Not only from Russia, France, the United States of America, etc., etc.
In turn, the head of the General Staff of the RA Armed Forces, Edward Asryan, told the journalists had said it is true that all those registered in the reserve force must go to the training sessions in order, not agreeing, of course, that there is a selective approach towards those with oppositional views.
Against the background of these statements, on June 11, 168.am sent a written request to the RA Defense Minister Suren Papikyan or the Ministry with the following questions:
■ Has Vazgen Kocharyan, the youngest son of Andranik Kocharyan, the chairman of the Standing Committee of the National Defense and Security Committee, received a notice to participate in a training camp during these years after completing his mandatory military service, and if not, why, on what grounds? In general, can you name any serving son of an official who participated in the training sessions?
What military specialization does Ashot Pashinyan have?
■ How many notices to participate in the 25-day training camp from June 9 to August 14 were sent, were they more than those sent in the previous round?
■ In the context of 25-day training camps, to what extent is the allocation of combat duty according to military specialization?
Two years ago, RA Defense Minister Suren Papikyan announced in the National Assembly.
“Conscripting continues to be one of the challenges facing our country, we must speak loudly about this։ There is a phenomenon when a citizen of the Republic of Armenia renounces the citizenship of the Republic of Armenia to his child in order not to serve. In this regard, we should start lustration in our environment, I have also appealed to the Prime Minister to start a similar process in the state administration system. In my opinion, the state official should not allow himself that not only his child, but also the children of his close circle and relatives renounce their RA citizenship. That phenomenon exists, we can record painful indicators. We have to face ourselves on a moral basis and finally face the bad trend for me.”
To what extent did Nikol Pashinyan, taking this into account, start such a process in the state administration system, because after that fresh information about the release of the sons of government representatives from the army was circulated, and to what extent was this process carried out in the Ministry of Defense?
■ Some time ago, there were reports in the press about the release of Zhirayr Amirkhanyan, who was the assistant to the head of the State Security Service, is it related to the lustration process mentioned above?
In response to our questions, in its response letter sent on July 2, the defense department headed by Suren Papikyan first stated regarding the son of Andranik Kocharyan.
“In response to your request of 11.06.2026 addressed to the Minister of Defense of the Republic of Armenia, we inform you that Vazgen Andranik Kocharyan was invited to the military commissariat to participate in training sessions. and in accordance with Article 17 of the RA Law “On Military Service and the Status of Servicemen” was referred to the primary health care center, 2018 of the RA Government. to pass the examination defined by point 2.1 of Annex 2 of the decision N 405-N of April 12.
Based on the results of research conducted by the organization providing primary health care services in the prescribed manner, the Medical Commission of the Yerevan No. 2 Military Commissariat of the Republic of the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia, in accordance with the requirement of the 5th column of the Resolution N 404-N of the RA Government of April 12, 2018, was recognized as “Not subject to being called up for training.”
As for the question of the participation of the sons of officials in the training sessions, such statistics are not maintained.”
It should be noted that Andranik Kocharyan’s youngest son first served In the “Haykazov” military unit of the Artsakh Armed Forces, then he continued his service in Vanadzor, military specialization – artillery. Let’s not forget that Kocharyan’s eldest son did not serve in the army either.
As for Nikol Pashinyan’s son, Ashot Pashinyan, Suren Papikyan, in response to another of our written inquiries in April of this year reported that he was not sent a training camp participation notification.
“2023-2026 During this period, only 4.7 percent of those registered in the reserve force with Ashot Pashinyan’s military accounting major participated in the training sessions, and Ashot Pashinyan has not yet participated.” explained the Ministry of Defense.
The Ministry of Defense keeps Ashot Pashinyan’s military specialization a secret, which was also done in the case of our last survey: «there are some professions in military accounting that are not subject to publication.”
As for the 3rd question, the defense department said that it does not keep statistics of split notices either. In other words, they don’t calculate how many people were called to the training camp, how many were taken as a result, isn’t it interesting?
In the context of the 25-day training camps, to what extent the deployment of combat duty is carried out according to military specialization, the structure headed by Suren Papikyan informed that “the training camps of point 5 of the appendix approved by the decision of the Armenian government of October 18, 2018 N 1174-N are announced by the decision of the Republic of Armenia, based on the list, dates and events approved by the government of the Republic of Armenia on the basis of each year’s military mobilization preparation plans according to the number and professions involved”.
Suren Papikyan’s promised lustration to the process answering the related question, the Ministry of Defense assured that the process announced by the minister is continuing, without saying to what extent Nikol Pashinyan took note of it and started it in the state administration system.
As for the information about the dismissal of the former assistant of the head of the General Staff, Zhirayr Amirkhanyan, the Ministry of Defense stated that he continues to work in the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia, but in what position, they did not elaborate, there are reports that he is currently an advisor to Suren Papikyan. And to Colonel Amirkhanyan on a specific occasion we have touched on, he held a rather important position under the former.
—