In his first post-vacation press conference, Nikol Pashinyan addressed the situation in relations with Russia with several episodes, calling it not a crisis, but an opportunity.

He announced that he will participate in the session of the EAEU intergovernmental council scheduled for August 6-7.

“The EAEU is a platform where I will raise all the issues related to our agenda. I will say what I said in the briefing. I said in the briefing that the EAEU is paralyzed. If the EAEU contract is not valid, the EAEU is not valid. And the EAEU is de facto paralyzed, and the paralysis shows tendencies to deepen. If this issue is not resolved quickly, I am 100% sure that the Republic of Armenia will overcome this problem, the EAEU will not overcome it,” Pashinyan stated.

He hinted that he is responsible for Armenia-Russia relations, not the one responsible for Armenian-Russian relations, and Armenian-Russian relations are something else, and they see that they have a different content in some places.

“As for the political component of those relations, I have already said that Armenia has decided to have alternatives, while there were none before. We are talking about not only economic, but also political alternatives,” added Pashinyan.

He noted that Armenia has signed documents on strategic relations with a number of states, while there was simply no such thing before.

“The Republic of Armenia has decided to have alternatives, including political ones. Russia sees a problem there. The problem is as follows: either the relationship is exclusive or the relationship should not be, we do not accept it. We say that relations are not exclusive, but they must exist. This is a legitimate position,” Pashinyan emphasized.

He also addressed the question of what kind of partner Armenia is for Russia, why there is no trust in Armenia. Pashinyan said what Armenia had done to whom, when Lukashenko announced who needs Armenia. “Look who needed it,” Pashinyan said.

He also clarified that there was no discussion about the railway in the conversation with Putin. “But our position is the same, it is our property, and RA should have the opportunity to use the railway as it deems appropriate. I want to be very clear about this, there is no alternative to this. That issue should be resolved, I want to be very clear. We want to solve this problem in a friendly way,” he said.

At first glance, Pashinyan’s statements show that the RA authorities will not abandon the current foreign policy course or change some decisions. These statements actually prepare Armenia’s positioning before the upcoming session of the EAEU intergovernmental council, forming the negotiation framework by which Yerevan is going to act within the union.

It is noteworthy that Pashinyan uses two messages at the same time. On the one hand, he declares that the EAEU is “paralyzed” and, if the contractual clauses do not work, then the whole union does not work either.

On the other hand, he does not talk about withdrawing from the EAEU or reviewing the participation, but on the contrary, he announces that he will personally participate in the session and will raise all the issues on that platform. This dual approach suggests that Yerevan’s goal at this stage is not to abandon the integration structure, but to use political and legal pressure mechanisms within it to advance its own agenda.

However, Pashinyan’s next statement about “alternatives” was more remarkable. Although it is not yet clear what alternatives will be formed for Armenia, and if the European market is opening up to Armenia, why is the Armenian side asking Russia to remove economic restrictions, the RA authorities continue to show that they are following the path of political, economic and security diversification.

However, the key question arises here. How compatible is this approach with the current logic of the EAEU? Although the union is officially an economic structure, the political factor within it has always had a crucial importance. Russia, being the largest economy and the main political center of the Union, naturally expects not only economic but also strategic mutual trust in relations with the member states.

That is why Yerevan’s emphasis on “political alternatives” is often perceived in Moscow not as a manifestation of a sovereign foreign policy, but as a consistent policy of limiting Russia’s influence.

Against this background, the session of the EAEU intergovernmental council on August 6-7 can become not only a platform for discussing the economic agenda, but also another political test of Armenian-Russian relations.

As a matter of fact, Pashinyan has already publicly formulated the demands with which he will appear at the session and in the absence of consensus, he will continue to raise the issues, damaging the reputation of the EAEU.

At the same time, one cannot ignore the domestic political addressee of Pashinyan’s statements.

The wording “EEU is paralyzed” is not only an external stimulus to Moscow, but also an attempt to justify to the Armenian public why Armenia is continuously deepening its relations with other international actors.

In other words, Pashinyan is trying to present the need for multi-vector foreign policy not as an ideological choice, but as a forced consequence of the situation when the existing integration mechanisms, according to Yerevan, no longer ensure the protection of Armenia’s economic interests.

It is in this context that Pashinyan’s statement of not calling the situation in relations with Russia a “crisis” but an “opportunity” should be considered. That wording probably reflects Yerevan’s calculation that the current tension can be used to try to form a new model of relations and find new markets.

The question is whether such a balance is equally acceptable for Moscow, as the Russian policy of recent years shows that the Kremlin continues to consider the economic and political components in post-Soviet integration projects as interconnected and difficult to separate from each other elements.

The answer to this question is more than simple, but it is still not clear what “potential” this crisis has to deepen.

—

Armenia’s share in Russia’s merchandise turnover does not exceed 0.9%, so it will not be difficult to replace supplies from the republic, said Maxim Reshetnikov, Minister of Economic Development of the Russian Federation.

More than 80% of Armenian exports are food, agricultural products and alcohol, which are mainly supplied to EAEU countries.

—

Political scientist Vladimir Martirosyan writes on his Facebook page.

“Maybe we should talk seriously.

“The kidnapping of politics. How does Armenia pay the price of the reproduction of power”

The elections are over, the account closing period has begun. The reproduction of power in politics never ends with elections. It ends only when the full political price of victory is paid.

That price is always paid in three directions.

1. To the people.
2. The political system.
3. External power centers.

The main question of Armenia’s post-election reality today is not who will be arrested tomorrow. The main question is: who receives the political dividend paid for the reproduction of power?

In order to understand the answer to this question, it is necessary to simultaneously look at two seemingly unrelated processes. One inside, the other outside. In fact, they are two sides of the same political mechanism.

“The Hijacking of Politics”

Open the news of any day and you will see that the main topic is no longer politics. It has become a never-ending stream of arrests, criminal cases, detentions, court hearings, immunity issues, bails, investigatory decisions and judicial comments.

Pay attention to the most important change. The main actors are no longer politicians. They are lawyers, prosecutors, investigators, judges. Political debate has been replaced by litigious language, political programs by accusations, political competition by criminal cases. This is not a news accident. This is a serious political technology. The government controls and manages the protest, because it has designated its place and field. And whoever chooses the field of struggle, sooner or later begins to dictate the logic and rules of the struggle.

If the government succeeds in moving the political struggle from the square to the court, it changes not only the geography of the struggle, but also the physics of politics. If before the opposition itself decided the political time, now that time is decided by the investigator, the prosecutor and the judge.

As a result, political time is replaced by trial time, the street by a court yard, political thought by waiting for a judge’s decision, and political initiative by an endless defensive reaction.

The greatest defeat of politics is not prison. The biggest defeat of politics is the moment when the political force begins to live according to the schedule made by the government. When your political activity is determined by the investigator’s notice, your rally by the time of the court session, your news by the detention request, and your agenda by another criminal case initiated by the government.

At that moment, you are no longer creating a political agenda. You consume the agenda created by someone else.

This is the biggest strategic advantage of the government. Not that the opposition is protesting, but that the opposition no longer independently decides when, against what and in what form it should protest. Each criminal case creates a separate center of attention, each court hearing a separate emotional channel, each social dissatisfaction remains a separate island, and the fragmented dissatisfaction never turns into a unified political pressure.

While everyone is looking at the courts, a second, much deeper process is developing.

States do not live on news, but on obligations. During the election campaign, the public was mainly presented with a toxic internal political agenda. This was done in order to overshadow another question: “What foreign political obligations has Armenia undertaken on the way to the reproduction of power?” That question was not raised because that was the price of victory. And now the stage of paying that price has begun.

Azerbaijan continues to advance its priorities, including the issue of constitutional changes in the Republic of Armenia.

Russia is waiting for Armenia to finally clarify its strategic choice regarding security and integration directions and to hold a referendum in Armenia.

The European Union expects Armenia to remain on a strictly anti-Russian line in its foreign political cooperation, and thereby keeps the deepening and continuity of the entire cooperation in limbo.

The United States is interested in the strengthening of a new strategic arrangement in the South Caucasus and expects from Armenia that the US interests will be taken into account, especially in the direction of Iran.

Different interests, different goals, but one common logic. Everyone is waiting for Armenia to take the steps that, in their opinion, correspond to their strategic interests. However, the most dangerous change here is not even that.

The dangerous thing is that today the external actors are already publicly expressing themselves regarding the constitutional, integration and internal political processes of Armenia. This in itself is not a new phenomenon. The new thing is that such statements are often perceived not as an exception, but as a natural component of the political process. From a political science point of view, this is a dangerous borderline.

When external actors make sure that their expectations are not only heard, but gradually become part of the internal political agenda, a new relationship is formed. In this relationship, the external influence begins to spread not only on the foreign policy, but also on the internal institutional level of the state. There is no vacuum of influence in international relations. If the state weakens the boundaries of its political independence, those boundaries are quickly filled with external expectations. And from the moment when external expectations become one of the determining factors of the internal agenda, sovereignty begins to recede. It happens not with one signature, not with one big contract, but with the accumulation of many “small”, “technical”, “temporary” and “inevitable” concessions.
This is exactly how states lose political subjectivity, with “accumulations”. What is now slowly unfolding as a coercion to RA is the result of that accumulation, and that accumulation, in turn, is the result of the power preservation policy.

“Two processes. One strategy.”

At first glance, it seems that the domestic criminal agenda and foreign political developments are unrelated. In fact, they are interrelated processes.

• Inside, politics is replaced by lawsuits.
• Outside, the state agenda constantly clashes with foreign expectations.
• Inside, political behavior is controlled.
• Outside, the state strategic direction.

This is the double payment of the political price of reproduction of power. One is internal, the other is external.

And as long as society is focused on internal noise, external strategic decisions are far more easily out of public political control.

And where is Armenia?

If Azerbaijan is waiting for its part…

If Russia is waiting for its share…

If Europe is waiting for its share…

If the US is waiting for its share of…

Then where is the section of Armenia? Where is the increase in security? Where is the economic development? Where is the strengthening of state institutions? Where is the deepening of sovereignty?

If there is no clear, public and measurable answer to these questions, then the most dangerous political situation arises. When everyone expects something from you, and you don’t know what you will get in return, you gradually stop being a full subject of the negotiation.

Ելքը․

The legal battle must continue. However, politics cannot be limited to courts. The court decides the legal fate of a person. Politics determines the fate of the state.

The main problem of the opposition is not to abandon the courts.

The main task is to return one’s own political initiative: one’s own agenda, one’s own time, one’s own topics, one’s own rules of the game, one’s own places of protest, one’s own political thought.

The highest level of political struggle is not to respond to every move of the opponent. The highest level of politics is to force the enemy to respond to your initiatives. History has repeatedly shown that systems do not lose where they have chosen the battlefield. They lose when they lose control over the political behavior of society.

Հ․Գ․ States are not destroyed only by wars. They are also destroyed when the society is so busy with the current noise that it does not notice when the strategic direction of the state changes on its behalf.

Therefore, the main political question of Armenia today is not who will be arrested tomorrow. The main question is this: “Who writes Armenia’s political agenda today?”

If that agenda is written in the courts, and the country’s strategic decisions are formed under the constant pressure of external expectations, then we are already dealing not only with the post-election political crisis, but also with the crisis of state management. And history never remembers such crises as another political scandal. It remembers them as turning points in the fate of states.

Հ․Գ․ Stay strong! I will come again.)”

—

Early in the morning, law enforcement officers searched the house of Narek Karapetyan, a member of the “Strong Armenia” party, within the framework of the initiated criminal proceedings.

Later, Narek Karapetyan mentioned in a conversation with journalists that they did not take anything in particular.

“People engaged in political activities are actually forbidden to engage in politics. The reason for everything is to do politics, there is no other reason. It means that a person should not engage in politics except for his appointed satellites. It cannot be like that, we have to engage in politics in our country, because he is leading in the wrong way,” he stressed.

In this context, Narek Karapetyan brought Nikol Pashinyan’s steps that led to the aggravation of relations with the Russian Federation.

“Do you remember his words yesterday: we have a demand of several billions? He is aggravating, the same way he was talking to the president of Azerbaijan at that time, what happened, what we got, what we ate. Yesterday, he also aggravated relations with another country, 30-40 times bigger than Azerbaijan, even with a country bigger than this one. Let’s take the statement in relation to railways, other things. He aggravates the relations with the countries, as he did with Azerbaijan, which led to the war.

The relations with Azerbaijan were strained, but it gives us an opportunity, we have not digested that enemy yet, why is it creating a new enemy for us? Let him agree, can’t he? Let him go negotiate with Russia, find a way, a process, a solution to the situation, not lead to a dead end. Not by complaining, we are an independent country and we should be able to be correct in setting a distance, but not in such a way as to aggravate relations.

Now those who applaud this escalation, the same people applauded the escalation with Azerbaijan before the 2020 war,” he said.

It should be noted that during a briefing with journalists after the government session, Nikol Pashinyan stated that the RA government is ready to discuss the issues related to the “South Caucasian Railway” in the international arbitration court as well.

“Our position remains the same. it is our property, and the Republic of Armenia should have the opportunity to use it as it sees fit.

There is no alternative to this, this issue must be resolved. We want it to be resolved amicably, but a de jure question may arise that if there is a disagreement, it can be discussed in the arbitration court,” Pashinyan stressed.

During the briefing, he also referred to “Araratcement” factory, noting: “I watch the news, they show the shots from above. Is it a 21st century factory? It’s loot, an object of loot. At least you can put two pennies for the entrance area, tidy it up a bit.”

Here, Narek Karapetyan advised Pashinyan to pay attention to the gates of the “Haykakan Zamanka” editorial office.

And Nikol Pashinyan did not ignore the theme of charity during his yesterday’s briefing, noting that “oligarchic charity does not bring anything good”, and asserting that too much money was spent, for example, on military units.

“In approximately 6 months, we fired 40-50 people for this, 30 people were investigated. And more money was returned due to these additions during our examination than they did,” Karapetyan said in a conversation with journalists.

Details in the video

—

The Catholicos of All Armenians is our Eminence, Narek Karapetyan, a member of the “Strong Armenia” party, told reporters.

He emphasized that no politician has the right to interfere in the affairs of the church.

Karapetyan said that if possible, they will meet His Holiness before the start of the National Assembly session.

—

The future Speaker of the National Assembly, Ruben Rubinyan, has signed another order on awarding Davit Arakelyan, the head of the staff of the National Assembly.

“Guided by Article 5, Part 2, Clause 22 of the Constitutional Law “Regulations of the National Assembly” and based on the Annex 1 of the Decision of the Council of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia of December 27, 2017 “On approving the procedure for awarding the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia and the President of the National Assembly with awards and the description of the awards” NDAKHO-045-L, I order:

For his significant contribution, merit and outstanding services rendered in the field of state activity, Davit Arakelyan, head of the staff of the National Assembly, was awarded with the Medal of Honor of the National Assembly of the RA National Assembly,” said the letter signed by Ruben Rubinyan. in order, which was published on the NA website.

It should be noted that former National Assembly President Alek Simonyan’s teammates, his spokesperson, assistants, advisors, have written applications for release one by one.

A few days ago, the media also wrote that Davit Arakelyan, who is also considered to be Alen Simonyan’s teammate, will also leave the post.

It turns out that Ruben Rubinyan made a “unique” gesture by rewarding Davit Arakelyan before leaving his post.

Let’s remind that in February 2023, by the order of Alen Simonyan, Davit Arakelyan was released from the position of assistant to the NA Speaker and was appointed the head-general secretary of the NA staff.

By the way, Ruben Rubinyan has not yet assumed the position of NA Speaker, the other day order signed on defining and approving security rules in the National Assembly, including the implementation of journalists’ work in a designated special area.

—

On June 26, it became known that Russia stopped the supply of fish products from Armenia, thus expanding the restrictions it applies on Armenian products to the Russian market. Almost 10 days after this decision, during the Government session, the Minister of Economy Gevorg Papoyan announced that he received an official permission from the European Commission regarding the export of fish and fish products of Armenian production.

Meanwhile, both before and after this announcement, Armenian fish farmers carried out protests, declaring that they do not have a market to sell their products, very little is sold in the domestic market. As a result of all that, they accumulated many debts and loans. The fish farmers also held a protest in front of the Government building, demanding a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, but no one accepted them.

At the beginning of the week, Armen Karapetyan, a member of the Fish Breeders’ Union, told us that they are waiting for the next session of the Government to understand what decision the Government will make regarding them.

Today of 168.am in a conversation with Fish breeders union president Scream Grigoryan said that a plan to support fish farmers was discussed at the last session of the Government. True, it does not completely solve their problem, but to some extent it will soften the situation.

“Yesterday, a support program was discussed at the Government session. We knew that they had to discuss a plan, but we didn’t know what plan, that’s why we were waiting. Of course, we thank you, but that program does not provide a radical solution to our problem. The radical solution of the problem is the sale of the existing product, which must be sold, the solution ways are being sought in different ways today,” said Gor Grigoryan.

To the question: Does the government’s support program satisfy the fish producers, our interlocutor answered that if it does not satisfy, what can they do?

“And if the government didn’t do that, now we have to cooperate in order to implement longer-term projects.

Exporting fish to the EU market is not a plan, but a concrete action, but now we are talking about a support program, that is, long-term subsidized loans, credit holidays, etc.

At the moment, Armenian fish cannot be sold on the EU market,” Gor Grigoryan emphasized.

—