According to European media, the delegation led by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, will visit Armenia next week, which will also include EU Enlargement Commissioner Martha Kos.

According to the European press, this visit is considered as an impulse of high-level support to the RA authorities after the victory in the June parliamentary elections.

It is not difficult to imagine what propaganda bacchanalia the authorities will organize on the occasion of the visit of European officials, presenting it as an expression of Nikol Pashinyan’s wise foreign policy and as another step on the way to get rid of Russian dependence. The Europeans will probably also make loud financial promises in Yerevan, which will feed the public with the same propaganda for a few more months.

In reality, however, both this and other visits to Armenia that have already taken place testify to the upcoming not so pleasant events, which inevitably had to follow the parliamentary elections held on June 7.

Generally, after the formation of a new government in the country/reproduction of the existing government, the head of that government shows the foreign policy priorities of the state with his first few visits abroad.

This political tradition is based on the presumption that the programs voiced during the pre-election period make the winning political force a state policy, which is why it is communicated with allied and friendly countries. At the base of that formula, in turn, lies the classic statement that foreign policy is the continuation of domestic policy.

In Armenia, this has been completely violated, this provision has been turned upside down: the foreign policy of the state is not the continuation of the domestic policy, but on the contrary, the foreign policy completely shapes the domestic policy, because the current government was reproduced entirely with external support and intervention.

In terms of content, it is what is commonly called external management. Armenia differs from the classic protectorate in that there are more than one power holders in the form of the collective West and individual Western countries and Turkic-speaking states. It is a different matter that Azerbaijan aspires to take over the role of the sole owner of power in Armenia at some stage, and in this matter it is only succeeding.

It is no coincidence that the first foreign official to visit Armenia after the National Assembly elections was Hikmet Hajiyev, the assistant to the president of Azerbaijan. The latter, as well as high-ranking European officials, come to Armenia to receive their due or their promised share in exchange for ensuring the victory of the Communist Party in the elections.

Nikol Pashinyan is not only ready to give each of them what they want, but he does it with the greatest pleasure, not caring that as a result of his actions, Armenia will only be left with a map pin on his chest.

Harutyun Avetisyan

—

On Friday at 13:00, I want to organize a meeting with our compatriots who voted for our strength, so that we can decide whether it is right not to take the mandates or to take them, to discuss the ways of struggle.

This was said by Narek Karapetyan, candidate of the “Strong Armenia” alliance of parties.

—

The political repression against our family continues. On June 8, the next day after the National Assembly elections held on June 7, 2026, a demand was made for the dismissal of my sister Lilit Ghazaryan from her position, on the instructions of the RA Ministry of Health. After refusing to write an application for dismissal, he was fired illegally. This was written by Edgar Ghazaryan, a candidate of the “Strong Armenia” alliance of parties.

“By the irony of fate, that decision was made through Arayik Baghryan, a native of Artsakh, the former Minister of Health of the Republic of Artsakh, the current director of the Drug Expert Center.

My sister has been working in that center for more than 30 years, and for the last 22 years she has been working as a deputy director. He is one of the unique specialists in the field of drug regulation in Armenia, a candidate of pharmaceutical sciences, an expert of the World Health Organization…

The only reason for dismissing Lilit Ghazaryan from her position is the fact that she is my sister, in the event that she showed political restraint and did not make any public or public speech.

The time will come for the retribution of the undeserving and the restoration of justice. Some people should think about the day when they will not be fired, but will be thrown out and the next location can only be the “Abovyan” institution,” he wrote.

—

The former president of the Yerevan Criminal Court, now retired, “famous” judge in many politically charged cases, Artur Mkrtchyan, decided to become a non-judge member of the Ethics and Disciplinary Committee of the General Assembly of Judges.

About this 168.amthe was informed From the official website of the judiciary.

Today we learned that Artur Mkrtchyan regretted. no longer wants to examine the conduct of judges.

What was his motivation to become a member of the commission is perhaps clear, but we will try to understand why Artur Mkrtchyan withdrew his application in the near future.

At this moment, let’s note that the former judge who examined the case of the 2nd President of the Republic of Armenia Robert Kocharyan and granted the arrest petition, gave instructions to the judge examining the case of “Gagik Soghomyanian”, left the case of the former Minister of Finance Gagik Khachatryan unfinished due to his retirement, and examined other politically charged cases, at some point wanted to become a member of the commission examining the conduct of judges.

—

During the briefing after the government session, journalists drew Nikol Pashinyan’s attention to the fact that Azerbaijan says that the issue of the return of “West Azerbaijanis” should be included in the peace agenda, doesn’t this mean that the peace process is in danger?

“Now, for example, it is being discussed that there will be an event in the US Senate on the topic you mentioned, but there is silence that 10 days ago or a little more, Armenian organizations put an issue on the agenda, which refers to the continuation of the Karabakh movement. As long as Karabakh flags are placed in the NA hall, as long as this conversation continues in RA, it will continue in a mirrored manner. In other words, it is just one factor conditioning the other. I say that all this has no practical significance and will not have as long as we are in power, and we express a clear position on this matter.

The leader of the “Armenia” bloc says that Armenia should not be satisfied with 29,743 square kilometers, so what should it do? Everyone listens to what is being said and what is happening in Armenia. I am saying very directly, how much efforts the US federal lobbying made in that direction, how many steps it took, they will get… that is, any step that contradicts the choice made by the RA people, and the people have said that the Karabakh movement will not continue.

Now, any attempt to continue the Karabakh movement at other levels will lead to mirror reactions. And that process, yes, can cause problems. It is said that some event took place in Nakhichevan, but we did not say what large-scale event was held in Armenia before that, what emphasis was made, etc. I want us to understand the context of the problem, the cause-and-effect relationships, besides, it is meaningless who started the first and who started the second. It’s the same for us to go and try to understand how the Karabakh movement started, who was right and who was wrong,” he elaborated, reminding that Azerbaijan is a strategic deal. to suggest, they should leave each other alone.

“And the way to leave it alone is not to continue the Karabakh movement in Armenia, and not to take action related to this logic in Azerbaijan.” Pashinyan emphasized.

Let’s start with the last wording.

On November 13, 2024 In the parliament, Nikol Pashinyan, referring to the BRICS summit in Kazan and the conversation with Aliyev, elaborated.

“The most important part, from my point of view, is that a thought was voiced, and I think that for peaceful coexistence and peaceful coexistence, Armenia and Azerbaijan need not only peace and various agreements, but also need to conclude a strategic deal. about what resolutions they will live side by side as independent states in the next 100 years. I think this is the most fundamental and important question.”

Shortly after, In December 2024, Aliyev to Pashinyan’s strategic deal proposal had answered in another mutually beneficial transaction. In particular, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Azerbaijan invited the relevant bodies of Armenia to cooperate in the criminal case against the former military and political leaders of Artsakh, who are in custody in Baku.

“Guided by serious grounds, according to which, most of the persons who are considered as suspects or witnesses in the episodes discussed during the investigation are now in the territory of the Republic of Armenia, the Prosecutor General’s Office of Azerbaijan invites the relevant authorities of Armenia to cooperate,” the statement of the Azerbaijani department states.

Before that in October of the same year Aliyev stated that if Armenia really wants to achieve peace with Azerbaijan, it “must” condemn the “atrocities committed against Azerbaijanis” and “punish the guilty”, considering it one of the effective means of strengthening trust between the two countries. In other words, Aliyev responded to Pashinyan’s offer of a deal with a deal that might be mutually beneficial. But, on the other hand, it must be admitted that, essentially, Pashinyan’s proposal to leave each other alone was left “in the air” by Aliyev.

Besides this, In December 2024 Aliyev proposed another “deal” to Pashinyan, by which he also rejected his proposal to conclude a strategic deal. President of Azerbaijan had suggested Pashinyan to start negotiations with the “West Azerbaijani” community and to take practical steps towards the restoration of the fundamental rights of “West Azerbaijanis”. In other words, the fact that Aziz Alekberli, the president of the “West Azerbaijan community”, declares that “the issue of the return of West Azerbaijanis to their native places should become one of the topics discussed within the framework of the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia”, this is a reminder of Aliyev’s earlier demands or is based on them.

And Nikol Pashinyan was not constrained to “leave his outstretched hand in the air” in 2024, Aliyev’s answer was “strategic behavior”, and In December 2025 Pashinyan is another strategic deal offer To the dictator of Baku.

“And now I want to make an open, public offer to Azerbaijan, because as much as they have a problem with these topics, we have a problem too. I propose that we adopt a joint road map to close these two topics in parallel.

I also told our people of Karabakh that their return is not realistic. If we continue the return agenda, it means that we start the Karabakh movement again, but I said that we should not continue the Karabakh movement. The Karabakh movement is over, and attempts to start it are useless. But on the other hand, they also see in Armenia that Azerbaijan constantly uses the incomprehensible terminology “Western Azerbaijan”.

And in response to this, already in February of this year in connection with this issue, how? we have informed, Aliyev made another dangerous and cunning proposal to Pashinyan.

And now why does Pashinyan think that this time Aliyev will accept the reactivated strategic deal offer? In the end, if Nikol Pashinyan is “selling” the peace agenda to the citizens of Armenia in order to maintain his own power, Aliyev, apart from that, has promises he made to his own people a long time ago, which his own government is keeping, he is just waiting for the right moment. And that convenient moment can be chosen so that Pashinyan has room to maneuver inside the country in the best case.

And the fact that Pashinyan has fears, so to speak, about the crushing of the established peace and the emergence of processes that bring problems, is completely justified, and not on the basis of what he says, but because in Baku it are of the opinion that without the return of “West Azerbaijanis” there cannot be stable and strong peace in the region, or it is unlikely to be.

In other words, Baku does not connect this issue with the Karabakh movement, as Nikol Pashinyan presents, nor is a mirror process considered. It cannot, in fact, be considered a mirror, if we take into account that the RA authorities do not have any state program for the return of refugees from Baku and Artsakh, while Baku does, Aliyev does.

Therefore, Aliyev’s demands as the holding of some “symbolic” events at the public or political level cannot be considered an adequate action, and we are sure that Aliyev does not give them as much importance as Nikol Pashinyan, even if he has certain fears regarding “revanchist forces”. However, it is clear that by placing the Artsakh flag in the RA Parliament, today Armenia cannot bring back Artsakh, and Azerbaijan can achieve the implementation of the political plan of “Western Azerbaijan” with cunning proposals, in a phased version, as long as Nikol Pashinyan sees the key to its prevention only within Armenia, that is, at the level of internal problems. Or Aliyev’s propaganda machine in a special language, an event dedicated to “Western Azerbaijan” is being organized in the US Congress, because, for example, in RA orIn France There are some episodes related to forcibly displaced persons from Artsakh.

We will only be happy if Nikol Pashinyan manages to keep the “door” of the Republic of Armenia closed against the “Western Azerbaijanis”. Nikol Pashinyan, who before the 44-day war at the session of the Council of Ministers announced. 

“At the direction of the special services of Azerbaijan, the so-called “Western Azerbaijan” initiative was created, referring to the Republic of Armenia. This makes Azerbaijan’s regional policy more comprehensive, and the absurd initiative of “western Azerbaijan” came to replace the ridiculous series of so-called “southern, northern, northwestern Azerbaijanis”: highlighting Azerbaijan’s destabilizing ambitions in the context of the entire region.”

P.S. About 2 years ago, a group of foreign diplomats were given certificates of honorary membership of the “West Azerbaijan” community. Former Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu is also on the list of those persons.

—

Days after the signing of the Iran-US memorandum and the US-Iran negotiations in Switzerland, the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, left for Azerbaijan. In Baku, he is participating in the 20th session of the Parliamentary Union of the member countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. On June 24, the delegation led by Ghalibaf was received by the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev. According to the official message of the Azerbaijani side, Aliyev noted that during the war, Azerbaijan was on the side of the Iranian people and state.

Ilham Aliyev emphasized that Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf’s visit will also create a good opportunity for discussing issues related to the bilateral agenda.

He also referred to the successful development of Azerbaijani-Iranian relations. Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf thanked Aliyev for visiting the Iranian embassy and expressing his condolences on the death of Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and many civilians, as well as for his congratulatory message on the election of Ayatollah Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei as the supreme leader of Iran. The parties also exchanged ideas on the prospects of bilateral relations, including issues of inter-parliamentary cooperation, and referred to the activities of the intergovernmental commission.

The meeting between Ilham Aliyev and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and the subsequent official message document the shift in the balance of power in the South Caucasus. After the signing of the US-Iran memorandum and the first round of negotiations between Washington and Tehran in Switzerland, Azerbaijan seems to be forced to change its anti-Iranian rhetoric. The overcoming of the West-Iran war crisis has returned Tehran to the status of a key regional player, which forces Baku to pursue a more prominent policy with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The US-Iran negotiations are already reflected on the regional dynamics of the South Caucasus. And the message of the Aliyev-Ghalibaf meeting is an indicator of the change in that dynamic. It is noteworthy that the official messages released after the meeting emphasized the development of bilateral relations, inter-parliamentary cooperation and mutual understanding on regional issues. However, what was more remarkable was not what was said, but what was not said.

Several months ago, during the military confrontation between Iran and the USA, after the incident that happened near the Nakhichevan airspace, Azerbaijan demanded responsibility from Tehran with harsh statements and openly expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of the Iranian side.  Iran-Azerbaijan relations were tense, in turn, Iran not only responded to Azerbaijan, but also threatened countries that might give their territory to Iran’s enemies to carry out actions against Iran. Now that topic is completely absent from the official agenda.

This change cannot be explained by diplomatic ethics alone. More likely, it reflects a change in the regional power balance. If until recently, Baku could afford tougher anti-Iranian rhetoric, taking into account Tehran’s international isolation and confrontation with the West, then the war, the start of the US-Iran negotiation process changes the situation. The easing of the war crisis and the restoration of direct contacts with Washington return Iran to the position of an important regional actor, which forces Azerbaijan to conduct a more cautious and balanced policy towards its southern neighbor.

The importance of Iran for Azerbaijan is determined not only by security, but also by economic and transport factors. Iran is the only regional power that has consistently stated that the change of state borders or the creation of extraterritorial channels in the South Caucasus is unacceptable. For this reason, Baku, even maintaining the strategic partnership with Turkey and Israel, cannot ignore the Iranian factor.

The emerging situation may have important consequences for Armenia as well. If Iran’s international positions are indeed strengthened and Tehran returns to a more active regional policy, the restrictions that Iran imposes on power scenarios and attempts to reshape regional borders will be strengthened.

This can have an additional deterrent effect in the South Caucasus, simultaneously creating a favorable situation for the recovery of the “3 3” platform. At the same time, Armenia can benefit from Iran’s growing economic and transport role, especially in the context of the development of north-south channels and regional communications.

Therefore, Ghalibaf’s visit to Baku should be considered not as an ordinary ceremonial event, but as a manifestation of a wider process. Azerbaijan actually records that the new stage in US-Iran relations changes the regional environment and forces to review the previous tough approaches towards Tehran. Perhaps a new period is beginning in the South Caucasus, where Iran can turn into a key factor, whose interests and positions are increasingly difficult to ignore for all actors in the region.

—

Preface:

2026 The final results of the June 7 parliamentary elections in Armenia were announced on June 14. 19 parties or blocs submitted documents to participate in the elections (then one of them withdrew from the election), and 58.9 percent of the voters chose the composition of the parliament from those 18 political forces. According to the data published by the Central Electoral Commission (CEC), one party, “Civil Pact” (the ruling party), and two alliances of parties, “Strong Armenia” and “Armenia”, entered the National Assembly, receiving 49.75 percent, 23.27 percent, and 9.92 percent of the votes, respectively.

According to the results of a sociological survey carried out two weeks before the elections, on May 19-21, by MPG, a member of the Gallup International Association, 59.3% of the participants in the poll regarding their electoral preferences and willingness to participate in the parliamentary elections on June 7 declared that they would “definitely participate” in the vote, 28.8% said they would vote for the ruling “Civil Pact” party, and 14.9% for “Strong Armenia”. bloc, 12.1% for the “Armenia” bloc, 8.7% for the “Prosperous Armenia” party, 5.8% for the “Wings of Unity” party (the data are presented for those parties and blocs that, according to survey data, exceeded the minimum thresholds of parties and alliances, 4 and 8%, respectively.

The elections took place under the unprecedented influence of the geopolitical factor and many gross violations were recorded. Including grossly distorting election results. After the preliminary results were announced, the “Prosperous Armenia” party demanded a recount of votes in a number of precincts, as a result of which, thanks to the increased votes, that party overcame the transient threshold. The CEC annulled the results of three precincts, nullifying the more than 230 votes received by “Prosperous Armenia” in those precincts, again depriving that party of the right to enter the parliament. Then, when summarizing the final results, the CEC deliberately violated the imperative requirement of the Election Code and did not announce a re-voting in the precincts whose results were canceled and affected the election results.

The distribution of seats in the parliament was grossly distorted, both qualitatively (one of the opposition parties, the “Prosperous Armenia” party, did not enter the parliament), and quantitatively (thanks to this, the ruling party received additional seats, overcame 3/5 of the seats in the parliament, which enables the ruling power to make changes in the constitutional laws and appoint people it wants to some important positions without the support of the opposition). It is nothing but the overthrow of the constitutional order formed through elections in the country. It will be shown below that the statement of the CEC, which “explains” the decision not to re-vote in the three election precincts, is an attempt to mislead people and cover up the illegal and unconstitutional action, referring to the Venice Commission and the Constitutional Court.

7 political forces participating in the election appealed to the Constitutional Court, demanding the annulment of the results of the June 7 parliamentary elections.

After the restoration of independence, the only possibility to prevent this unprecedented phenomenon in the history of Armenia – the attempt to overthrow the constitutional order – is the decision of the Constitutional Court to cancel the elections. 

The CEC is a tool for overthrowing the constitutional order

It is clear that the results of the public opinion polls accurately reflected the percentage of voters participating in the elections (a little less than 60 percent), which is a high indicator for parliamentary elections.

Unfortunately, the encouraging facts are limited to this. The predicted picture of the formation of the Parliament is fundamentally different from the results published by the CEC, not only from the point of view of the distribution of seats of the parties in the National Assembly, but also from the point of view of the quality of the composition. It was predicted that the ruling party and four opposition parties and alliances would enter the parliament, but in reality the ruling party and two opposition alliances entered the parliament.

But the main problem is not that the CEC announced 73 percent more votes than predicted in favor of the ruling party, or that, according to the Central Electoral Commission, the “Prosperous Armenia” party received more than 2 times and the “Wings of Unity” party received 2.5 times less votes than the public opinion polls predicted.

It may seem paradoxical, but the meaning of these huge discrepancies is related to the thousandth percent of the index of another opposition party, “Prosperous Armenia”, which the CEC expelled from the National Assembly at the cost of gross, deliberate violations. The point is that according to the preliminary results of the elections, that party received 3.996 percent of the votes, while 4 percent was required to enter the parliament (that is, 0.004 percent was not enough).

After recounting the votes in some precincts, it was found that according to the protocols prepared in those precincts, the CEC “lost” more than 200 votes to “Prosperous Armenia” during the counting of the votes, and after their restoration, it became clear that this party also enters the parliament. But the adventures did not end there. It turned out that after restoring the “lost” votes and redistributing parliamentary seats in the National Assembly, the ruling party does not even get 3/5 of the mandates, which, according to the Constitution of Armenia, enables it to change the constitutional laws and appoint the people it wants to some important government positions without the consent of the opposition.

In order to provide this important tool to the ruling party, the CEC annulled the voting results of three polling stations and took more than 230 votes from the “Prosperous Armenia” party. After that, the percentage of votes of this party decreased again (3.9893), the number of parties that entered the parliament was reduced from 4 to 3, and after the redistribution of seats in the parliament, the ruling party received more than 3/5 of the seats. Article 95 of the Election Code defines:

“1. The Central Electoral Commission summarizes the results of the elections in the manner and within the time limits set by Article 75 of this Code and adopts any of the following decisions.

1) On the election of the National Assembly and the distribution of mandates,

2) About the preliminary distribution of the mandates of the deputies of the National Assembly,

3) on appointing double voting in separate election precincts,

4) On declaring the election of the National Assembly invalid and appointing a re-voting of the elections,

5) On invalidating the double voting of the National Assembly elections. In that case, the President of the Republic appoints a new regular election of the National Assembly.”

It is obvious from the first point of part 1 of this article that the results of the elections are the election to the National Assembly and the distribution of mandates. Since the annulment of the results of the three precincts changed the distribution of mandates and therefore affected the results of the elections, there were both qualitative (instead of four parties and alliances to three) and quantitative (distribution of mandates among political forces) changes in the election results, as a result of which the ruling party received additional powers.

Article 101 of the Electoral Code requires mandatory re-voting in those polling stations where the annulment of the results affected the results of the elections.

“Article 101. Designating a double vote for the National Assembly elections, declaring the results of the elections invalid

1. If such violations of this Code occurred during the elections that could affect the results of the elections, the Central Electoral Commission makes a decision to hold a repeat vote in separate electoral precincts, where it is possible to eliminate the consequences of these violations by such means. If it is not possible to eliminate these violations by such means, then the election of the National Assembly is declared invalid and a second vote of the National Assembly elections is scheduled.”

It is clear that the Electoral Code unconditionally and without any additional condition imposes a re-voting in the electoral precincts in which the voting results were annulled, and this affected the election results. The CEC, however, refused to announce a double vote in the mentioned three polling stations, deliberately violating the Election Code and grossly distorting the election results.

The CEC explains the refusal to hold a double vote (the results of the voting in 3 precincts by the CEC of the Republic of Armenia from invalidation with the unfounded reference to some comments of the Venice Commission and the Constitutional Court, in order to mislead people and cover up the illegal and unconstitutional action of overthrowing the constitutional order formed through elections.

7 parties and alliances that participated in the election appealed the actions of the Central Electoral Commission to the Constitutional Court, where the hearing of the issue was scheduled for June 26.

The essence of geopolitical conspiracies

Armenia is located in one of the epicenters of the geopolitical confrontation between Russia and the West for the formation of a new world order.

After the revolution in Armenia in 2018, as a result of which the current ruling party came to power, the foreign policy course of the country changed radically.

If before that it was balancing relations with Russia and the West, after the revolution the government adopted an obvious pro-Western direction. It had a dramatic impact on Armenia’s relations with Russia and the settlement process of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict under the leadership of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs (Russia, the United States and France).

That process, the settlement document of which provided for a referendum on the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh, was suspended, in 2020, the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh was subjected to Azerbaijani-Turkish military aggression, and in 2023, to ethnic cleansing, genocide, and the Minsk Group was forced to disband.

Azerbaijani military formations have occupied 240 square kilometers of the territory of Armenia, and the Armenian authorities have agreed to fulfill Azerbaijan’s demands: changes to the interstate border, changes to the country’s Constitution, etc. Armenian authorities are trying to find support in the West and have passed a law to start the process of joining the EU, although it is clear that Armenia is not ready in many ways and will not be ready for another few decades. In 2025, the United States joined the process of Westernization of Armenia.

It is obvious that in the situation created under the influence of the struggle for the new world order, the EU and the USA are interested in pushing Russia out of the South Caucasus, and in this regard, they are interested in the victory of the current authorities in the parliamentary elections, which unconditionally follow the instructions of their Western partners.

It is no coincidence that a few weeks before the elections, unprecedented events, not typical for the pre-election period, took place. The 8th European Political Community Summit was held in Armenia, during which EU leaders openly supported the ruling party, French President Macron participated in the party’s election campaign, US Vice President Vance expressed support for the ruling political force, and a few days before the elections, State Secretary M. Rubio changed the route of his visits, his plane landed in Yerevan for 45 minutes, and at the airport he signed documents with the Armenian foreign minister on the allocation of Armenian territory for the implementation of the TRIPP program, strategic partnership and the extraction of Armenia’s most important minerals and rare metals.

This was followed by Russian sanctions against Armenia, banning the export of Armenian fruits and vegetables and several other products to Russia. It is obvious that in such a difficult situation, the authorities of Armenia need a strong influence in the parliament, and for this they did not hesitate not only from the violent change of the composition of the Constitutional Court a few years ago, the arrest of more than 700 of their political rivals, including the leader of the leading opposition party Samvel Karapetyan, the initiation of groundless criminal cases, but also from the gross violations of laws and norms of the Constitution, which can lead to the overthrow of the constitutional order formed by parliamentary elections.

Was it necessary to appeal to the Constitutional Court, when it completely and illegally formed the current government?

Real political struggle requires the use of all tools. Moreover, in order to carry out this struggle in the international arena, it is necessary to use all domestic opportunities. It may seem that some people bring a serious counter-argument against these claims: “By appealing to the Constitutional Court the results of the elections and the Constitutional Court formed by political persecution, bribery, high pension proposals, and terrorism will be “legitimized” because, most likely, that body will confirm the election results.”

However, this is a false claim, which is the result of a very common dangerous phenomenon in Armenia. Often, some politicians use words, the meaning of which they do not know, to give weight to their words: political science, territorial integrity, legitimacy, etc. In connection with the latter, some also declare that if the opposition takes the parliamentary mandates, it will legitimize the government. However, those who make such “assertions” do not know that anyone cannot arbitrarily “interpret” professional terms, because they have their own definitions.

In particular, conditions and factors are defined for the legitimacy of the government. For example, according to D. In Bietheim’s monograph “The Legitimacy of Power”[1], power can be considered legitimate if the following three conditions are met and two factors are present:

conditions:

1. The activity must be carried out strictly in accordance with the established procedures (constitution, laws and popular rules),

2. Those rules should be considered mandatory by all, both the rulers and the ruled,

3. There should be no sign from the society that it radically disagrees with that regime.

–factors:

1. Elections and the existence of a multi-party system are mandatory factors, because only then can society express its principled agreement or disagreement with the existing government system.

2. Respect for constitutional regulations that reflect “on what terms society agrees to be governed.”

Can any reasonable person claim that any of these conditions and factors apply to taking parliamentary mandates or applying to the constitutional court? Exactly the opposite.

It is very easy to show with facts that the authorities of Armenia have violated all the conditions and factors from the very beginning and are not legitimate. They have been under pressure from the courts, including the Constitutional Court, for years, they have extorted the decisions they want from the acting parliament by blackmail and pressure, they have repeatedly violated the legislation, the masterpiece of which was the decision of the Central Election Commission, which led to the overthrow of the constitutional order, not to hold re-voting in three precincts. Mandatory requirement of the Electoral Code. Could there be a more flagrant violation of the first and second conditions?

An obvious fact of non-fulfillment of the third condition is the fact that only 30 percent of those who have the right to vote voted for the government.

Violation of the first factor is confirmed by the various and numerous violations in the parliamentary elections, the registration and participation of a significant number of fake (spoiler) “parties” in the elections.

Will the Constitutional Court “validate” the overthrow of the constitutional order?

The answer to this question depends on two factors: the ideas and positions of the CC members and the wording of the documents submitted to the court.

Regarding the members of the CC, the fact that two of them refused to participate in the discussion of the case is important. Although they presented a different justification, it is clear that the motive was that they understood that, regardless of the consequences of other violations, the results of the election were affected by the cancellation of the voting results in three electoral precincts, and by not ordering a double vote in them, the CEC deliberately violated the law of the country. And those who ratify such a decision put a cross on their professional reputation. Therefore, from the point of view of the decision of the CC, it is important whether the other members perceive it. At the same time, the fact that, according to Article 62 of the Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court, the court adopts decisions by the majority of votes of the total number of judges is also important. Therefore, not participating in the examination of the case makes it difficult to make a decision.

And what decision can the CC make?

According to Article 77, Part 13 of the Constitutional Law on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court shall adopt any of the following decisions in connection with the decision made as a result of the National Assembly elections:

1) Leave the decision adopted by the results of the National Assembly elections in force.

2) recognize as invalid the decision adopted by the results of the National Assembly elections and

a. invalidate the election results,

b. invalidate the results of the elections and establish the procedure for the distribution of mandates,

c. appoint a second round of elections.

Acceptance of either of these options depends on two circumstances:

– which factors influencing the election results was emphasized by the party who appealed to the court,

– how reliable does the court consider the arguments presented by that party?

Therefore, it is important to discuss which circumstances and which violations that party highlighted in the documents presented.

It is obvious that the violations are many and varied, but we should not forget that they can influence the court’s decision only when the magnitude of the influence is measurable. For example, the increase in pensions, in the absence of such a provision in the 2026 budget law, was intended to influence the voting results, but it is not possible to estimate how many voters voted with this factor in mind.

Meanwhile, the annulment of the voting results of the three election precincts related to the “Prosperous Armenia Party” without ordering a re-voting has clearly had measurable results. Therefore, it would be correct for the parties who applied to the court to focus on proving the validity of their claim based on that circumstance.

Conclusion

The analysis of the processes of preparation and holding of parliamentary elections, post-election events, as well as fierce geopolitical competition in the region shows that

1. The absence of institutionalized parties and traditions of political culture in the post-Soviet region during the period of escalation of geopolitical conflicts is fraught with very dangerous challenges for the countries of that region, because in practice there is no international control of the observance of international legal norms and principles due to the fact that the influential countries, which should guarantee the observance of these principles, themselves very often do not follow these principles to achieve their geopolitical goals.

2. In those countries, unprecedented violations of legislation, use of administrative resources, persecution of political rivals, “dirty” methods of struggle, etc. are observed in those countries, because there are no internal mechanisms of political culture that allow to restrain reckless and adventurous steps, as well as external control mechanisms.

3. The 2026 parliamentary elections in Armenia fully correspond to the trends described in points 1 and 2. It has come to the point that the Central Electoral Commission refused to fulfill the mandatory requirement of the Electoral Code regarding double voting in three precincts and qualitatively and quantitatively distorted the election results in favor of the ruling party.

4. The Constitution and the Electoral Code of Armenia (constitutional law) provide the last chance for a civilized solution to the situation related to the 2026 parliamentary elections. Armenia’s opposition parties are challenging the results of the elections in the Constitutional Court, and the court should annul the results of those elections.

Of course, it cannot be excluded that under the pressure of the authorities, the Constitutional Court, like the CEC, may also ignore the obvious facts, the norms of the Constitution, the Law on the Constitutional Court and the Electoral Code. However, it should be kept in mind that these elections and the parliament formed by their results will be illegal and illegitimate and will not only further destabilize the situation, but will also put the country in front of new and more difficult challenges.

1. In order to ensure an objective and sound discussion, the political forces that applied to the Constitutional Court to effectively implement the justification of their demand should build it on the illegality of the decision of the CEC regarding the “Prosperous Armenia” party to cancel the voting results in three precincts and not to hold a double vote and the case leading to the overthrow of the constitutional order.

 Tigran Torosyan

Doctor of Political Sciences,

Prospective studies and initiatives center

 Tigran Torosyan, elections-2026, Constitutional Court, NA elections, CP, power, electoral fraud, administrative resources, polls, Central Election Commission, “Prosperous Armenia”, double voting, illegality of CEC decision, overthrow of constitutional order, dangerous challenge, annulment, opposition, voting, legitimacy, Bitheim’s “Legitimacy of Power”, political culture, parties, Venice Commission, “Strong Armenia” bloc, “Armenia” bloc, geopolitics

[1] Beetham David․ (1991)․ The Legitimation of Power․ Palgrave Macmillan.

—

The European Union is launching new platforms of influence in the South Caucasus, deepening its participation in regional logistics projects through the “Connectivity Agenda”. While the Armenian media and social networks were discussing the photo of European Commissioner Martha Kos with Armenian apricots, a much more important event took place in Brussels.

The European Union officially launched the Connectivity Agenda Platform, an initiative that, according to the European Union, is designed to bridge Europe and Central Asia through the Black Sea region and the South Caucasus. The EU, which has significantly increased its influence in Armenia and the South Caucasus in recent years, unlike the USA, has been left out of the geopolitical discussions on the development of logistics projects, so through this platform, the EU is trying to participate in the regional infrastructure management process.

According to the EU announcement, the European Commission launched the Connectivity Agenda Platform and signed agreements with international financial institutions, through which it is expected to attract strategic investments worth up to 2 billion euros for the development of connectivity in the Black Sea region and the South Caucasus. The platform was presented during a high-level ministerial meeting hosted by EU Enlargement Commissioner Martha Kos, EU International Partnerships Commissioner Joseph Sikela and EU Sustainable Transport Commissioner Apostolos Tsitsikostas.

According to a statement from Brussels, the Connectivity Agenda Platform will serve as a framework for participating countries, international financial institutions and other stakeholders to coordinate investments and policy actions in the fields of transport, energy, digital connectivity and trade.

“In order to further strengthen cooperation with the region, the participants also agreed to strengthen the operational efficiency of the Trans-Caspian transport corridor. They invited the European Commission to evaluate the operation of the corridor and propose priority actions to increase its competitiveness.

In order to support the implementation of the connectivity agenda, the European Commission has signed declarations of intent with international financial institutions, through which it is expected to attract investments of up to 2 billion euros for transport infrastructure, border crossings, as well as trade facilitation projects in the Black Sea region and the South Caucasus. European Commissioner for EU Enlargement Martha Kos said that in the conditions of the growing conflict, it is encouraging to see that so many countries are united around a common project. “We need reliable trade routes, and the Trans-Caspian transport corridor has become just such a route. During the next 15 years, trade turnover on this route can increase fivefold,” he noted.

Marta Kos also spoke about Turkey’s role in the Middle Corridor, saying that she could not imagine a strong Middle Corridor and all these digital, energy and trade relations without Turkey’s strong participation. Kos noted that the EU will continue contacts with Turkey, and meetings with Turkish officials are planned in the near future. According to him, at the end of this month, he will visit Ankara with Kaya Kalas, the High Representative of the EU for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and Magnus Brunner, the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs and Migration.

Russian analyst Alexander Khramchikhin 168.amtold that this initiative of the European Union should not be considered as mere economic support, this is another step towards the strengthening of the EU in the region. The main goal, according to him, is to influence the process of forming new logistics channels through attracting investments, consulting and other support programs.

“For decades, the regional actors, Turkey and the states of Central Asia, have had an influence on the “Middle Corridor” project. In this dynamic, Beijing has also been able to capitalize on its position by asserting economic “soft power” influence, and Russia continues to use its geopolitical leverage to try to prevent the strengthening of Western influence in the region. Against this background, Brussels is trying to “penetrate” through new platforms. This is not just an infrastructural project for Brussels, but an attempt to deepen hegemony, so that Europe is not just a consumer, but one of those logistics management centers.

This policy of the EU is also determined by the security strategy. Against the background of the ongoing war in Ukraine, it is critical for Europe to have routes that bypass Russian projects. The EU is trying to create opportunities to ensure the diversification of its energy and commodity supplies. The Middle Corridor is important for Europe, so the EU is ready to “buy” its participation with investments of 2 billion euros,” Khramchikhin said.

As for the EU’s statements regarding Turkey’s role, he noted that the EU understands that without Ankara’s agreement, it is not possible to participate in all of that, so the deepening of relations with Turkey becomes the core of the EU’s regional policy, which is nothing new.

“With its activity, the EU is trying to enter the field of regional agreements. The EU is trying to make sure that the future of the Middle Corridor is decided not only in Ankara or other capitals, but also in the EU, but how it will be done depends on them, the regional countries,” Khramchikhin said.

—