It is an indisputable and obvious fact that the European integration of Armenia is a bubble. A naïve reader may ask why Pashinyan became the main supporter of that “fairy tale”.

There are 3 main reasons behind Nikol’s “Westernism”:

1. His real policy completely coincides with the pan-Turkish project, which is supported not only by Turkey, but also by Great Britain. These two actors are not members of the EU, and Pashinyan cannot tell the truth to the Armenian society. Therefore, by creating the geopolitical mirage of Europe, he is covering the reality with smoke.

2. “European integration” is a sweet fairy tale that could be easily sold to Armenian voters during the hot pre-election stage. Although for many years the main actor of that approach is not the KP, but its satellites. Pashinyan plagiarized the topic from his allies, because the “peace” donut he synthesized was not selling well. This also explains the fact that none of the Nikola satellites, who were supporters of EU integration, entered the parliament.

3. In order to ensure his own reproduction at any cost, including through highly anti-democratic and violent means, Pashinyan strengthened his back in the West in advance, presenting himself as “свой парень” and preemptively closing the eyes, ears and mouth of the self-proclaimed guardians of “European values”. This was also facilitated by the ongoing operation to portray the main opposition forces as “pro-Russian”.

What should be done if Armenia really had a European perspective? Let me list just a few steps.

• Conduct a large-scale and real audit of the implementation of the Armenia-EU EPA, CEPA, publish that report, dismiss those sector officials who have achieved below 75% performance.

• Release all political prisoners in the country and stop the existing persecutions on political grounds.

• An official document with legal weight from Brussels, for example, Official Opinion of the European Union or higher, by which instead of welcoming the empty law adopted by the RA NA, it is clearly established the realism of Armenia’s membership in case of compliance with EU standards.

• To announce in advance which of the penultimate of the mandatory Copenhagen standards for EU membership, the conditions set by individual member states (for example, Bulgaria’s current condition-obstacle to North Macedonia) will wait, or rather, threaten Armenia.

• What will the last of those criteria, the mandatory condition formulated separately by the EU, be like for Armenia? For example, could it be the removal of the Russian military base from Armenia?

• Creation of the Ministry of European Integration and Reforms by the government in the new structure.

• The creation of a multi-billion instrument by official Brussels to support Armenia’s reforms, following the example of Moldova’s Growth and Resilience Facility.

Of course, this list is not exhaustive and can be expanded. Undoubtedly, all this needs a political combination, for example, a referendum on the relevant issue, an official application for EU membership, the granting of the EU candidate-member status. Not to mention that the recent disgraceful parliamentary elections and their devastating effect on Pashinyan’s legitimacy, as well as possible post-election decisions, will have an impact on the presented list.

And with all this, will the official Brussels or Yerevan resort to the measures I have listed to at least create the illusion of seriousness for the “European integration” narrative? I’m sure NO.

ARMEN ASHOTIAN

Vice President of RPA

“Vardashen” Prison

23.06.2026

—

Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor Vahe Davtyan writes: “An Agrarian Outskirts?

European Commissioner Martha Kos solemnly announces that the first symbolic batch of Armenian apricots has arrived in the EU. He also publishes a photo with the RA Minister of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure, holding an apricot.

Is this the Armenia we want to present to the world?

When instead of infrastructure, industry, energy, high technologies, transport corridors and strategic projects, Armenia’s European “success story” is presented with a few apricots, it is not just about the export of agricultural products. It is about the symbolic positioning of the country.

States in the world are competing with artificial intelligence, microchips, atomic energy, logistics hubs and technological ecosystems. And we are suggested to be proud that the Armenian apricot has reached Europe.

Apricot is a wonderful food, an important symbol of Armenian culture. And the political calculation of this action is more than clear. But when apricot appears exclusively at the core of the state’s foreign economic relations, it is willingly or unwillingly positioned as an agrarian periphery, rather than as a country with industrial, technological and engineering potential.

The most telling thing here is the photo itself. This actually reflects the peripheral perception of Armenia by Europeans. It was possible to take the same photo of an Armenian farmer, but not of the Minister of Infrastructure.

Symbols sometimes speak louder than official statements in politics.”

—

“There are rumors circulating on telegram channels that we should ban the import of Russian goods to our country. I just want to share with you what products are imported from Russia in the form of information, so that you can imagine what consequences this can have,” said Harutyun Mnatsakanyan, an agriculturist and a member of the “Strong Armenia” party’s pre-election list, in a video published on his social network page.

According to him, more than 80% of the grain used in the field of animal husbandry is imported from Russia to Armenia.

“It’s in the form of wheat, barley, corn, rye and other crops. In other words, our entire livestock sector, our daily bread comes from Russian wheat.

Oil for our daily use, grains: peas, lentils, buckwheat, types of rice, oat flakes are imported from Russia in large volumes, vodkas are imported from Russia at a cheap price.

Liquid gas, natural gas, diesel fuel, gasoline, etc. are imported from Russia.

I just want to understand if you are spreading these narratives, if exports are closed, the businessmen will face a problem, you closed the import, the entire population will face problems… What do you think, what do you think, with which organ do you think, dear people? Such statements cannot be made without a hint of responsibility,” said Harutyun Mnatsakanyan.

Details in the video.

—

“We must record that the election results were falsified in the post-election phase. In order not to allow the political force that passed the temporary threshold and received enough votes to enter the parliament, a process of invalidating the election results of the polling stations was carried out, as a result of which the CP is usurping the power reserved for 3/5.” of 168.am Mikael Nahapetyan, a member of the “I’m against everyone” party and a public figure, said in a conversation with the results of the June 7 elections in Armenia and what to do next.

He mentioned that in this context, he is not talking about how the KP managed to get the right to form the executive power, because the pre-election phase was also conducted with gross violations of electoral, criminal and administrative laws.

As for the rumors that the opposition forces that passed the National Assembly should give up their mandates, Mikayel Nahapetyan said that there is legal uncertainty here, that is, it is not clear what will happen when they give up their mandates. There is a reasonable assumption that the government will receive such an interpretation through the Constitutional Court, which is politically most convenient for it.

“But I don’t want to be guided by the model of “KP’s inadu” that, if we do this, then CP will go after some solutions that are beneficial to it. It is necessary to start from the essence of the question, what will the opposition members in the National Assembly do during the 5 years and make a decision accordingly. I am not calling the opposition to take or not to take the mandates. When I participated in the elections, both I and my political force clearly determined that after passing the temporary threshold, if we will not be able to implement our agendas, then we will not remain as deputies.

I think it will be good if others are guided by that logic, they can make their own political decisions and take responsibility for it,” Mikayel Nahapetyan added.

Regarding Nikol Pashinyan’s statement that “if they don’t agree with the results of the elections, they can go to the streets”, our interlocutor said that at the moment he does not see the potential of the streets, that potential should be formed through opposition work.

“My friends who will agree with me, we are going to undertake this kind of work, it is in this context that I say let people make a decision and take responsibility for it.

I am skeptical that it is possible to lead changes while sitting in the parliament. Nikol Pashinyan’s goal is power and only power, the rest is derived from it. And he will not dictate the street, the street will exist when there is a force with a plan, will and infrastructure to go out into the street,” emphasized Mikayel Nahapetyan.

—

The final results of the National Assembly elections of Armenia have been summarized. Nikol Pashinyan’s ruling “Civil Contract” party won a majority, though not a constitutional majority. It seemed that the country, which experienced a violent pre-election shock for several months, was waiting for a period of relative stability.

However, a few days after the vote, it became obvious that despite the summer season, the political season in Armenia is not over. Moreover, it is just beginning.

Today, neither the results of the elections, nor the propaganda, nor the fight for the voters’ votes are in the center of attention. The main topic is the government’s actions against key representatives of the opposition.  And if we look at what is happening not as separate episodes, but as one picture, then we get the impression that a new phase of the systematic destruction of the political and economic resources of the opposition camp is beginning in Armenia.

It is especially noteworthy that the forces that are traditionally considered to be in favor of maintaining close relations with Russia, or at least against the country’s sharp geopolitical turn, are under attack.

In fact, it is not only about internal political struggle.  We are talking about the formation of the new political architecture of Armenia.

The first major episode was the case of Samvel Karapetyan. Even before the elections, the authorities had started the process of depriving Karapetyan of the control of the actual “Electrical Grids of Armenia” company. After the elections, that process got further development. The government has prepared legislative mechanisms that can allow the state to establish full control over the company.

The dispute between the state and the owner of the strategic object is not unique.  Such processes take place in many countries of the world, but the Armenian case stands out for its political context. Samvel Karapetyan stopped being exclusively a big businessman a long time ago. After the creation of the “Strong Armenia” party, it turned into one of the key political opponents of the current government. Moreover, it is Karapetyan who is perceived by a significant part of the public and the expert community as a politician aimed at maintaining close relations with Russia. In this regard the question arises whether՞Is it only an economic dispute?՞ the eyewitness We are eliminating the financial base of a potential political competitorhe։

The situation surrounding Gagik Tsarukyan is no less demonstrative. After the elections, the pressures on the structures related to the leader of the “Prosperous Armenia” party have noticeably intensified. At first, problems arose regarding the real estate objects and sports infrastructures owned by him. It was followed by the decisions regarding the “Shangri-La” casino (the license was suspended). Discussions about “Araratcement” continue in parallel.

Each individual episode may have a legal explanation. However, politics is evaluated not only by individual decisions, but also by the overall picture. And the general picture is as follows. one of the largest financial and organizational centers of the Armenian opposition is consistently losing its positions.

It is especially symbolic that this is happening at a time when Tsarukyan’s party itself is trying to dispute the results of the elections and raises many issues related to the vote counting procedure.

It is hard not to notice another pattern. It is not by chance that politicians come under pressure. These are neither small parties, nor public activists, nor second-echelon figures, but the very forces that have been the basis for the so-called pro-Russian sector of Armenian politics for many years: Samvel Karapetyan, Gagik Tsarukyan, Robert Kocharyan, ARF are coming under attack. Presumably, it is the representatives of these political circles who become the object of criminal cases, searches, investigations, economic pressures and political isolation.

The searches conducted at the representatives of Dashnaktsutyun, the actions against Ishkhan Saghatelyan, the discussion of the issue of depriving Robert Kocharyan of parliamentary immunity create the impression that it is no longer about the fight against individual law violations, but about a systemic process.

The prime minister’s rhetoric attracts special attention. When the head of the government announces from the parliamentary podium that he will “smash” his opponents, it becomes not only an emotional expression. Such statements are inevitably perceived as a political impulse to the entire state machine.

After such words, any action of law enforcement agencies automatically begins to be considered through the prism of political motives. The government can claim that it acts exclusively within the framework of the law. The opposition will talk about political persecution, but the main issue for the public is the issue of trust, and trust in such situations begins to decrease rapidly.։ The most interesting thing is the international aspect of what is happening. In recent years, relations between Armenia and Russia have experienced an unprecedented crisis. The military-political cooperation in the previous format has actually been frozen. The level of political trust between the leaders of the two countries has sharply decreased. Problems regularly arise in the trade and economic sphere. Moscow openly expresses dissatisfaction with Yerevan’s foreign policy direction.

In this context, the pro-Russian part of the Armenian political spectrum remains the only platform through which Moscow could potentially maintain political influence within the country. If these forces are finally defeated or pushed out to the periphery of the political system, Russia will actually be deprived of its main political partners inside Armenia.

That is why what is happening has not only domestic but also foreign political significance։ For Moscow, the question is not the fate of individual politicians, but whether there will be any influential force in Armenia that advocates the restoration of a full strategic partnership with Russia.

Moreover, the logic of the government should be understood. For Nikol Pashinyan’s team, the events of recent years are the proof that the former political system is not able to ensure the stable development of the country. The authorities believe that a significant part of the current opposition is connected with the former elites and the oligarchic model of governance. Accordingly, the actions against these figures are considered by the supporters of the government as a continuation of the struggle against the old system.

However, even if we depart from that logic, the question of political consequences remains. The problem with any democracy is that the destruction of strong opposition almost always leads to the weakening of the political system itself. When the competitive environment disappears, the government begins to lose feedback with society. When there are no strong alternative centers of influence, the risk of political mistakes increases. When the majority of the voters stop seeing their representatives in the political field, dissatisfaction begins to accumulate outside the parliamentary institutions.

That is why the main question today is not the fate of Karapetyan, Tsarukyan or Kocharyan. The main question is what the Armenian political system will be like in two or three years.

If the current trend continues, Armenia may get a parliament where the opposition will formally be present, but its real political and financial opportunities will be seriously limited. Such a scenario may provide short-term stability, but in the long-term it carries serious risks.

The history of the post-Soviet space has repeatedly shown that when legitimate political competition disappears, crisis phenomena do not disappear with it, they are simply postponed for the future.

Today it is difficult to talk about the possibility of early elections. In the near future, the government has a stable majority and controls all major state institutions.

However, if the Constitutional Court rejects the demands of the opposition, if the parliamentary struggle is blocked, if the economic pressure on political rivals continues, then in a few years Armenia may face a new wave of turbulence.։ And at that time, the question of early elections will again appear in the center of the political agenda.

The paradox is that after the end of the elections, the country should have entered a period of stabilization, but for now it seems that Armenia is entering a new period of confrontation, where the fight is not for voters’ votes, but for the very right to the existence of a political alternative.

ARTHUR: PETROSYAN

fondsk.ru

Translation by Zhanna Avetisyan

—

The other day it became known that the European Court of Human Rights 10 years after the April war decision made, by which Azerbaijan was obliged to pay EUR 90,000 in compensation to the relatives of the brutally killed head of the missile artillery armament service of Mataghis N military unit, Major Hayk Toroyan.

The ECHR, among other things, recorded that Azerbaijan violated the right to life of an Armenian soldier and the prohibition of torture (beheading and desecration of the body).
It should be noted that Major Hayk Toroyan, who was seriously injured during the April 2016 war, died as a result of a blow to the head.

Armenia was involved in these cases as a third party according to court procedures, and although Azerbaijan has continuously denied its guilt, due to the careful work of the Armenian side, it was possible to present irrefutable evidence, including materials from Azerbaijani news channels.

And during the days of the 44-day war in 2020 and during the military clashes that took place after that, Azerbaijan continued its similar crimes, about which, as the former head of the RA International Legal Affairs Representative’s Office Liparit Drmeyan said, there are also complaints in the ECHR regarding these cases, and “if the authorities do not withdraw the complaints, they will be investigated by the court, and it is very likely that violations will be recorded again.”

In other words, the ECtHR decision related to what happened to Hayk Toroyan can be a precedent for the complaints taken during the 44-day period for the protection of the rights of the victims.

Azerbaijan, as expected, categorically rejected the ECtHR’s decision and announced that it will consider all possible measures to protect its legal interests, taking appropriate steps.

Baku, on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, expressed displeasure that the text of the ECHR decision mentions the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, the army, the line of contact between Artsakh and Azerbaijan, government bodies, etc. In other words, Baku has not at all denied the war crimes it committed during the April 2016 war and the atrocities committed against Armenian servicemen.

This did not deny even the Azerbaijani propaganda machine. And, in particular, one of the media in Baku wrote that allegedly Hayk Toroyan was “a soldier of the Armenian armed forces illegally located in the internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan”, that “he was not defending his home, he was not in the territory of Armenia, but he was participating in the protection of the lands that the whole world recognized as Azerbaijani”.

Let’s assume for a moment that it is so, does this give Baku the right to behead an enemy soldier while he is alive, is there such an international norm? And then, on February 19, 2004, was the Armenian officer Gurgen Margaryan again in the territory of Azerbaijan, when he was axed by the Azerbaijani criminal Ramil Safarov while he was sleeping? Moreover, later the Azerbaijani murderer was not only made a hero, but he is still serving in the armed forces of Azerbaijan, and last year he received the rank of colonel. In general, how? we wrote, Safarov and his wife enjoy the patronage of Aliyev’s government.

How much Armenia takes into account all of this, including the importance and precedential nature of the ECtHR judgment, we can make assumptions, even claims, especially when Nikol Pashinyan forgets that Aliyev’s aide Hikmet Hajiyev was one of the first to accuse Armenia of using prohibited weapons containing white phosphorus during the 44-day war, when they themselves used it, he forgets that Hajiyev never backs up will not stand up to the “just” demand to call Armenia responsible for the “Ganja incidents”, and not only that.

And the above-mentioned decision of the ECtHR is important not only in terms of being a precedent, but that it is, in fact, a response to the Baku “trial” with trumped-up charges against the military-political leadership of Artsakh, which was actually against the Republic of Armenia and the RA Armed Forces. At the moment, appeals of the former military-political leadership of Artsakh are being examined in the Appellate Court of Azerbaijan, they do not accept the charges brought against them. And during the actual trial, as we informed, not once was referred to also during the April 2016 war, Aliyev also sent “victims” to court on this topic.

For example, when presenting “episodes of crime” against the Armenian military-political elite, the state prosecutor of Azerbaijan, mentioning, in particular, the April war of 2016, tried to show that has been targeted civilian population. In 2016, such claims regularly was doing also today, Aliyev’s assistant Hikmet Hajiyev, who at that time represented the foreign ministry of his country, moreover, he tried to prove that the Armenian side tortured the Azerbaijani prisoners at different times, when it was their “monopoly”. This is a separate discussion topic.

In 2016, Azerbaijan violated international humanitarian law and tortured corpses, beheading whole people. The same thing happened during the days of the 44-day war, in 2022, during the September battles unleashed on the territory of the Republic of Armenia.

We are still not talking about the cases of torture and murder of Armenian prisoners before these incidents. I mean, much earlier we noticed that Azerbaijan’s war crimes are provable if the Armenian side carries out consistent work on international platforms, which was proved by the latest decision of the ECHR. Moreover, it is necessary to use the evidence when Azerbaijan fired its artillery in 2016 and even before that. had deployed close to their homes targeting its own citizens. This is if Baku activates the accusations against Armenia in connection with “targeting peaceful settlements”.

In this context, let’s add that during the “trial” in Baku, for example, the former commander of the Armed Forces, General Levon Mnatsakanyan, caught the Azerbaijani “victims” in lies several times. For example, a certain “victim” Elmir Abbasov, who stated that he was wounded in the Terter region during the April combat operations, where he served in the military, accused the Armenian armed forces of violating the laws of war, and even “prohibited ammunition was used against the civilian population: poisonous and incendiary projectiles.”

In response, Levon Mnatsakanyan stated that he was the commander of the army, but this is the first time I am hearing about what was presented. During another session, the general in Baku clearly claimed “During the days of the April war, the PB was not the attacking side.”

And when we warn that the war is not over, but may have temporarily moved to another dimension, this is exactly what we mean. And Azerbaijan will not sit idly by, so the RA government should have counter-scenarios, and in no case should it be the withdrawal of complaints from international courts, because impunity is what moves the war to the military dimension.

What is the Armenian side afraid of, the “Ganja incidents”? Hasn’t Azerbaijan targeted Armenian settlements, and even its own population, as we mentioned, but in 2016, during the 44-day war, and not before that, Yerevan did not behead an Azerbaijani soldier, did not kill any Azerbaijani prisoners. You can’t let go of Baku’s hands even when you’ve been given a “rope” and all you have to do is use it.

—