Eduard Sharmazanov writes: “On the one hand, they announce their desire to solve the problems with the Russian Federation and EAEU, and on the other hand, they have phone conversations with the officials of Kiev one after the other.

What is the point of having telephone conversations with Ukrainian officials without giving each other a turn, even now?

The person holding the post of NA Speaker has a phone conversation with his Ukrainian counterpart, and now the person holding the position of Minister of Foreign Affairs is having a phone conversation with his counterpart in Kiev.

And what, what kind of turning point did they talk about?

I think nothing. they just reduced the chances of a positive solution to the economic, export and agricultural issues with the EAEU and the Russian Federation to almost zero.

How can you be so irresponsible towards the problems of your own citizens?

If you want to solve the problems of our exporters and farmers in EAEU countries, why do you make the situation worse by having public phone conversations with official representatives of Kyiv?

Now you will say that it is the sovereign right of RA.

Of course, but what benefit does the RA economy and the citizen have from this?

It is necessary to act for the sake of RA, not against Russia.”

—

Narek Karapetyan, head of the National Assembly “Strong Armenia” faction from the podium of the Parliament, referred to the speeches of the candidates for the presidents of two of the National Assembly committees.

“During these 2 days, we had a presentation of the candidacy of the heads of the two commissions. The first is Mr. Gabrielyan, the second is Mrs. Julhakyan. We heard Mr. Gabrielyan’s speech, it was quite balanced, and we see that the man is ready to work with the opposition with good ideas. Since it is a defense sector, we see that it can create a lot of positive opportunities. In the second case, I cannot share the same opinion, because Ms. Julhakyan, with a well-prepared legal background, politically defended the line that exists in the country, but which legally will lead us to a closed room, – she noted and added, – Why do I say that, all the authorities that have been in Armenia, do you know what united them? have they considered that they are eternal, that they will judge this law that they are writing, not that they will be judged by it? From talking to everyone, communicating with everyone, I understood that everyone regrets one thing, that they did not create a competitive legal and judicial system.

No matter how well different forces govern the country, the government in a democratic country is changeable, and you, standing before us, very confidently say that the question is how many political prisoners there are.

There was also a person who said: How many political prisoners were there during Serzh Sargsyan’s time or during the time of the Second President? We are comparing them to political prisoners, did they do bad things… I heard dozens of words saying that they did bad things. Did they do badly? Don’t do the same.

From our friends, I turned around and listened to you, you almost convinced me.

I turned around and saw that half of them came here from the fortress. We invite all European embassies to participate in the court sessions, to see what people are being tried for.

In one of the communities, a man is being tried for bribery, because he promised that after the victory of “Strong Armenia” Ruben Vardanyan will return. In Alaverdi, a man is being tried for having told two people in an open connection: register for work, they paid tax as a party propagandist.

Many preachers judge: tax paid, registered preacher, and the name, they hear a conversation: you transferred the money, the registered person is a preacher.

Mr. Rubinyan told another story, the story of the kebab, that the father-in-law and the son-in-law talked to each other, the father-in-law made a joke, and the father-in-law was caught. It’s that man’s father, he wouldn’t give a kebab for a choice.

You will have to cut every case and present it like that, but nothing will force our people, you won’t be able to convince them that you should rightfully be here. You should not have been here, the “Prosperous Armenia” party should have been here. You said it should have been cancelled. After the cancellation, a second vote was needed, and the “Prosperous Armenia” party would be here. You took away hundreds of our friends, filled the forts, 2 days ago you filled the forts with more than 100 people.

You want to come out and say something else, give a politically perfect speech, but before you, they had that speech during the Republican Party, they had the same speech during the Second President’s time, and they had the same speech during the First President’s time, but it didn’t change the wheel of political changes. The cycle ends, the government changes, and you will be judged by the court that you made. Of course, us too, all of us.

Our vision of our motherland, the first thing is whether the judiciary can be independent or not. There are fears about some kind of affiliations, various countries, Singapore, almost all European countries have gone that way and provided solutions. You are destroying the foundation of the country, and how the society, in general, feels about their country,” continued Narek Karapetyan.

According to him, the government received less than 50 percent of votes, that is, more than 50 percent did not elect them.

“I’m not saying that everyone chose a force, but they didn’t choose you. Those people need a sense of protection, you have to build that system, you are responsible for it. The commission that you lead is not a commission of political power, tomorrow you should have such a court that, if you have been honest during this time, will justify you, not be afraid of someone’s call. In terms of religion, we have a big difference, I think that discussing our religious topic here will simply lead to disruption of the sessions.

We are really followers of the Armenian Apostolic Church, we do not pretend, we consider the leader of our legitimate church, our Catholicos, Garegin Vehapari, who was elected by all Armenians in 1999.

And do you know what happened after 1999: the deaths of 100,000 Armenian children? If you reject the Catholicos, you reject the people, from a religious-Christian point of view, you question whether 100,000 of our compatriots are Christians.

We are a secular country, we may not discuss the religious issue much in the National Assembly, because the issue will go beyond the scope of political discourse every time. That’s it.”

Then, turning to Ruben Rubinyan, the leader of the “Strong Armenia” faction said that the opposition is there to ask questions in the National Assembly.

“We will do everything to improve our country and bring real changes,” he stressed.

In response to the last part of Narek Karapetyan’s speech, Ruben Rubinyan did not agree that there is a difference between them and them on the religious issue.

“Perhaps between Mr. Bakoyan and the rest of us, not maybe, but there is definitely, our Assyrian friends. But between us, at least among those who are followers of the Armenian Apostolic Church, there is no religious difference, there is a political difference, because the debate you pointed out and the debate of whether or not to call x person by x name is not a religious debate at all, it is a political debate. And why our church and what is happening around it has become the subject of political debate, it is a very big political question, which I think we will have an opportunity to discuss in the near future,” said Rubinyan.

—

On August 4, in the context of the election of the new chairman of the National Defense and Security Committee we have touched on Regarding the question of whether or not to make public the report of the investigative commission related to the 44-day event.

In our article, we mentioned that the agenda of the newly elected NA inaugural session will soon include the vote for the candidate for the chairman of the NA Standing Committee on Defense and Security, Vilen Gabrielyan, and he will be asked questions about the 44-day report, so this issue will be addressed. In addition to this, we have reminded Pashinyan’s answer to the question, “Why is the report not published?”

“The report of the investigative commission has arrived now… let’s say, isn’t it clear to you that it will also be published in some way,” he responded.

Accordingly, we have not excluded that maybe at a politically convenient moment for him, Pashinyan will publicize it in some format or make it a subject of discussion, and maybe Vilen Gabrielyan or the new Speaker of the National Assembly will attribute this “success” to himself.

And these days in the National Assembly, as expected, Vilen Gabrielyan, who is running for the post of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Defense and Security of the RA National Assembly, was asked questions related to the publication of the 44-day report.

What did Gabrielyan answer, who, by the way, did not read the report and did not put his signature under it, as a member of the National Defense and Security Standing Committee in the previous parliament, although he participated in the interrogations invited by the investigative committee.

“The issue of the fate of the report of the investigative commission should be resolved exclusively in accordance with the principles of public accountability, transparency, law and objectivity, without biased assessments. Our society’s right to be informed cannot be compromised.”, – was the answer of the representative of the ruling power.

By the way, the former chairman of the NA Standing Committee on Defense and Security Affairs, Andranik Kocharyan, recently told journalists that the report should at least be read by those who lost a son, a husband in the 44-day period, that is, those who lost relatives.

And to the rebuttal: Are you ready to publish that report or not, Vilen Gabrielyan first responded that it has not been made public until now, the reason is the misinterpretation of the laws.

Let’s recall the Andranik Kocharyan-Alen Simonyan legislative dispute, when the events developed according to what Alen Simonyan said. But later Gabrielyan mentioned the real reason.

“It is not for Vilen Gabrielyan to decide, nor for the Chairman of the Defense and Security Committee, but it is Vilen Gabrielyan’s wish that this report be available to our public.“, he emphasized.

We came here and reached our conclusion: the decision-maker is Nikol Pashinyan.

Whether Vilen Gabrielyan’s wish will become Pashinyan’s wish at some point, time will tell when and to what extent.

One thing is clear: at that time, legislative grounds will be found, at least it will become a topic of discussion at one of the sessions of the new permanent committee on defense and security issues of the National Assembly.

Who knows, maybe at that time the former head of the RA Armed Forces General Onik Gasparyan to organize a closed meeting on the circumstances of the 44-day war will also be implemented to some extent. the offer, the implementation of which in the pre-election period, the former Minister of Defense of the Republic of Armenia Davit Tonoyan did not consider correct, on the grounds of not giving rise to various speculations.

—

RPA GM member Henrikh Danielyan wrote:

“Today, Taron Chakhoyan spoke about the furnishing of the border, the military situation, the army and soldiers, trying to compare today’s security realities with the army and security system of Armenia and Artsakh during the reign of Serzh Sargsyan.
I think that our public should be very clearly presented why such a comparison is not only unfounded, but also an attempt to avoid one’s own political responsibility.

During Serzh Sargsyan’s rule, Artsakh was Armenian. It had an Armenian population, state institutions, a defense system, and borders under Armenian control. The result of the years of your rule is that today, for the first time in millennia, there is no actual Armenian population left in Artsakh, and more than 140 thousand Artsakh Armenians had to leave their homeland as a result of ethnic cleansing.

During the years of Serzh Sargsyan’s rule, Armenia was consistently replenishing and modernizing its arsenal. “Iskander-M” operational-tactical missile complexes, S-300 systems, “Tochka-U”, unmanned aerial vehicles and many other weapons and military equipment were brought to Armenia. Armenia also received about 50,000 tons of military aid from Russia, as well as preferential credit agreements of 100 and 200 million dollars in order to purchase new weapons.

And what happened during your administration?

As a result of the 2020 war, the Armenian side lost a huge amount of military equipment and weapons. A part of it was destroyed during the fighting, and a significant part ended up in the hands of Azerbaijan. In the following years, the same government constantly announced problems related to the acquisition of weapons and supplies.

This is also the security reality of the period of your administration, the political responsibility of which cannot be avoided.
During the reign of Serzh Sargsyan, the Armenian soldier was a hero for the state and a key figure of the national value system. Schools were named after our heroes, monuments were built, and generations were raised by their exploits. Respect for the Armenian soldier was not a propaganda slogan, but an important component of the state and public value system.

And in the vocabulary of the representatives of your government, after the defeat of the war, the word “desertion” appeared in the context of attempts to shift part of the responsibility for military and political failures onto the soldier.

During the reign of Serzh Sargsyan, there were no Azerbaijani armed forces in the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia. In the “era of peace” you declared, Armenia faced Azerbaijani invasions, the presence of Azerbaijani armed units in the sovereign territory of Armenia, and new security threats. And Artsakh was completely depopulated.

During Serzh Sargsyan’s rule, demands could not be imposed on Armenia, which today have become permanent topics of our political agenda: the provision of the so-called “corridor”, external demands regarding the amendment of the Armenian Constitution and other preconditions for the sovereign decisions of our state.

Therefore, do not try to compare today’s situation with the army and security system during the years of Serzh Sargsyan’s rule.
Yes, even then there were problems and shortcomings. But Armenia was a military-political factor in the region, Armenians lived in Artsakh, Armenian armed forces protected the borders of Armenia and Artsakh, and there were no Azerbaijani armed forces in the sovereign territory of Armenia.
Today you can talk as much as you want about new roads, equipped positions, engineering works and “peace”. However, the result of state administration is not evaluated by the government’s statements, but by the reality that the state gains or loses as a result of that administration.

You have inherited Armenian Artsakh, a combat-ready army and a functioning security system.

As a result of the years of your rule, we have a depopulated Artsakh, the presence of Azerbaijani armed forces in the sovereign territory of Armenia and qualitatively new security threats.

This is the reality.

And after all this, trying to compare one’s own weakness with the army during the years of Serzh Sargsyan’s rule is not a political analysis.

It is an unsuccessful attempt to bypass the historical facts and the consequences of one’s own government and present a completely different reality to the society.

History can be interpreted in different ways, but its results cannot be rewritten.”

—

In Yerevan, the long post-election euphoria of pro-Western elites has to come to nothing. The ship called “Armenia is Europe” sank on the rocks of reality. The time of painful sobering up is coming.

Nikol Pashinyan, who just a few months ago was making statements about his intention to benefit from both the EAEU and the EU at the same time, today declared himself in a puddle. And it was expected. Russia has repeatedly warned that the simultaneous membership of the two customs unions is technically impossible, which is what Pashinyan was hoping for, openly announcing his desire to sit on two seats at once.

European dreams do not come true

A few days ago, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service expressed, that in Europe they are very well aware that Armenia’s withdrawal from EAEU will turn into a deep economic recession for it. Europe, despite the rhetoric, is not ready to offer real help. But EU bureaucrats, according to intelligence, will continue to promise support, explaining the delays with “homework” for European integration.

The authorities of Armenia, for their part, are already being demanded to expel Russian business from strategic areas, to stop ties with the Russian Federation and to suppress the opponents. for this they promise liberalization of the visa regime and the status of a “prosperous intersection”.

And that is when the Transcaucasian Republic is extremely dependent on the privileges and commercial advantages that membership in the Eurasian Economic Union provides. Armenia trades with EAEU countries without customs duty. This is a huge market where a significant part of Armenian exports goes. If Armenia finally leaves the union for the sake of Europe, it will mean the emergence of customs duties, customs control and other obstacles with Russia. And the European market will not become easily accessible for Armenia at all, and even more so it will not replace the Eurasian Economic Union.

The EU is strongly protected by quotas, phytosanitary norms and high duties on agricultural products, and most importantly, the EU is not ready to accept Armenian products to the detriment of its farmers and producers.

Besides, the allied relations with Russia allow Yerevan to get gas from Russia to buy at a preferential price: 177.5 dollars per thousand cubic meters. In the European market, the same gas is several times more expensive: 550-650 dollars. The loss of cheap gas will affect the entire economy. the prices of electricity, goods and services will rise, and this will lead to an increase in inflation and a fall in production. Due to the increase in energy prices, Armenia can to lose at least 14% of its GDP.

The Transcaucasian Republic has already felt part of the losses. Thus, recently “Rosselkhoznadzor” found violations of sanitary and phytosanitary norms in Armenian food products and because of this, imposed temporary bans on their import. First, flowers came under restrictions, then vegetables and fruits: tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, strawberries, and later, nuts, grapes, and finished products, including cognac, wines, and “Jermuk” mineral water. The consequences for Armenia were serious.

For a country whose export of agricultural products is highly dependent on the Russian market, these bans have become a significant blow, as it is almost impossible to find an adequate substitute for sales. Armenian producers had to urgently look for new buyers, and gaps in the budget appeared due to the loss of regular income.

Pashinyan’s reaction to the Russian bans was twofold. at first he tried to smooth the situation by promising to “compensate the losses of producers from the budget and launch business support programs”.

But later, it appears, “the knife went to the bone” and his tone hardened. The politician stated that “if the bans are not removed, it will be the beginning of the end of the EAEU, because the Union is paralyzed and does not work.” Moreover, he did not make any clear argument regarding the “end of the EAEU”, although this is not accidental. there are simply no such ones.

The European Union rushed to “help”. The head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, arrived in Yerevan and promised to exempt about 80 percent of Armenian exports to the EU from customs duties. Allegedly, this should help move the products from the Russian market to the European market. Additional financing of 80 million euros was also announced. However, in practice, the whole Brussels affair quickly turned into a failure.

First, export redirection takes time for certification, logistics, and finding buyers, and technical problems with access were not quickly resolved. Moreover, the announced aid was a drop in the ocean. only the loss of the Russian fish market to Armenia it was worth it about $78 million (98.3% of all fish exports went to Russia), and total economic losses from the bans were estimated at 2% of GDP, while the promised €80 million was hardly enough to compensate for losses in one or two sectors.

The Return of the Prodigal Son?

On July 6, the Armenian Prime Minister arrived in Yekaterinburg to participate in the international industrial exhibition. It was his first visit to Russia after the parliamentary elections, and the central topic of negotiations with Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin became the removal of Russian restrictions on the import of Armenian products.

The atmosphere of the meeting, Pashinyan in words was open, sincere and friendly, and the Armenian Prime Minister himself confirmed “Yerevan’s interest in further participation in EAEU”. For his part, Mishustin expressed hope for the protection of the rights of Russian investors in Armenia. As a result of the negotiations, Pashinyan announced the achievement of “a number of agreements” on controversial issues, but categorically refused to disclose any details, suggesting to wait for their practical implementation.

However, in the coming days it became clear that these optimistic statements, to put it mildly, did not coincide with reality. According to the Armenian mass media, referring to government sources, Pashinyan from Yekaterinburg is back deeply unhappy: sources claim that the two sides have failed to reach practical agreements on any key issues, including the lifting of trade restrictions.

The Prime Minister of Armenia made another attempt to regulate relations with Moscow by initiating a telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin on July 27. The main result of that conversation was also disappointing for Yerevan: no concessions or breakthrough agreements were reached. The head of Russia stressed The need to hold a nationwide referendum on Armenia joining the European Union in the shortest possible time or later being part of the Eurasian Union.

The conversation revealed the depth of the frosty relationshipWhen journalists asked Pashinyan if Putin congratulated him on the victory in the July 7 parliamentary elections, the prime minister had to admit. “No, he didn’t congratulate.” Experts assessed this as diplomatic coolness and a public signal that the Kremlin does not actually recognize the legitimacy of its government, given the pressure that the ruling forces, led by Pashinyan, exerted on the opposition before and during the parliamentary elections.

During the conversation, according to everything, Putin stated his position harshly. The Kremlin made it clear to Pashinyan that they no longer intend to tolerate the policy of “sitting on two chairs”. Armenia was faced with a choice. either he continues to follow the path of European integration (that is his right) and at that time he cannot count on previous privileges from Russia, or he makes a choice in favor of the EAEU.

This means that Moscow has decided not to recognize the “election theft” by Pashinyan and his team, as a result of which the votes of a third of the Armenian population, which were given to the prime minister’s party, gave him more than half of the seats in the parliament. Moreover, during the same conversation, Putin, as mentioned above, demanded that Pashinyan decide whether Armenia aspires to the EU or remains in the EAEU. And it’s not just rhetoric. Moscow made it clear to Yerevan that if you choose the West, do not expect “exclusivity” or money from us.

Pashinyan is upset

After the meeting with Putin, the Prime Minister of Armenia seems to have fully realized his own helplessness. But instead of looking for ways to regulate relations with Moscow and the EAEU, as well as improving the quality of products so that they can be returned to the Russian market, the short-sighted politician, on the contrary, went for escalation.

Pashinyan has a number of counter demands and threats related to the railway push forward։ He demanded 2 billion dollars a year from Russia for the right to “manage the railway infrastructure of the Republic”. The essence of his claims is that the roads are the property of Armenia and, according to him, Russia has used them “for free” for 30 years. He threatened that if the issue could not be resolved amicably, Yerevan is ready to apply to international arbitration, up to Paris arbitration.

In response, the Russian side explained that Pashinyan’s ambitions, to put it mildly, do not correspond to reality. The roads are managed by “South Caucasian Railways”, the “daughter” of “Russian Railways”, which received a concession back in 2008 for a period of 30 years, and during that time invested almost 400 million dollars in the development of the network. The head of Russian Railways, Oleg Belozerov, emphasized that the company regularly paid for the concession and modernized the infrastructure, and if Armenia decides to unilaterally terminate the contract, Russia will demand the return of all invested investments.

But this is not all. Pashinyan openly stated that his country is purposefully forming new political and economic ties in order to “no longer depend exclusively on Russia”. According to him, in the past, Yerevan simply “had no alternative”, and it was a serious limitation, but now, allegedly, “the situation is changing”.

Armenia has already signed strategic partnership documents with a number of countries, including China, the USA, Great Britain, the Netherlands and France. These steps, in Pashinyan’s naive opinion, are meant to ensure foreign political balance and create a security reserve in the event that previous ties weaken or become unprofitable.

Either the Armenian politician really does not understand, or he pretends, but the strategic partnership with the USA and Europe are just declarations, not a real replacement for cheap gas, an open market and billions of investments from Russia. And practice has shown that in the event of a crisis, none of these countries will rush to save the Armenian economy in the same way that Moscow did.

 Why?՞Is Pashinyan shooting Armenia in the foot?

Based on the above, the question justifiably arises why Pashinyan, probably aware of all the risks, so brazenly sat on two chairs, on the one hand he continued to use EAEU privileges and cheap Russian gas, and on the other hand he loudly announced his move to Europe. And as a result, it turned out exactly what the experts predicted: economic losses of billions of dollars and empty promises from Brussels, where practically they were not ready to open their markets or to compensate for the damage.

If we understand, the reason may be that many post-Soviet politicians (and Pashinyan is a prime example here) are used to seeing in Russia a kind patron who is ready to provide endless preferential conditions for the sake of maintaining partnership relations in the post-Soviet territory. Sometimes even those who at this moment were sitting on two chairs and already had one foot in the West.

Russia has been giving it huge gas discounts for years, practically subsidizing its economy, and in return received a coup d’état in 2014 and turning the country into an anti-Russian platform. And now, the war with NATO, in which the Kiev regime acts as a strike force.

This bitter experience taught Moscow one thing. no more discounts and indulgences for those who, behind beautiful words about friendship and age-old brotherhood, are slowly but surely moving westward, while maintaining the opportunity to make money in the Russian market and energy sources.

Today, Russia conducts a much more pragmatic policy and, I believe, is no longer going to feed those who sign a strategic partnership with the USA and France with one hand, and strive for cheap Russian gas with the other. Apparently, Pashinyan simply did not realize this in time, deciding that the old rules still apply, and he, like his other colleagues in the post-Soviet space, will avoid trying to sit on two chairs. But times have changed, and amust pay nowl: for this approach. well is necessary decide clearlyl:, who are you with?

This is Pashinyan’s main problem. he is not ready to make a choice here and now։ Having fallen into the trap, in the near future the Prime Minister of Armenia will definitely try to slow down the process of European integration in order to reduce the tension with Russia. He will certainly be stalling, arguing that the referendum makes no sense, as the EU accession process is allegedly still in progress. «theory» is. Let’s hope that these excuses will not mislead other EAEU member countries.

How long Pashinyan will manage to sit on the two chairs, which are moving further and further away, is an open question. But everything indicates that Yerevan should make the final choice very soon.

KIRILL OZIMKO

ritmeurasia.ru

Translation by Zhanna Avetisyan

—

Satik Seyranyan’s guest in the “Pressing” program is political analyst Hakob Badalyan.

Today it became known that the case of the Catholicos of All Armenians and 6 high-ranking clerics was assigned to a new judge. According to “Datalex”, the case will be examined by the judge of Armavir region Serzh Rushanyan, a 29-year-old judge who was appointed as a judge in 2023, before that he worked in the Ministry of Justice.

From the very first day of the colorful velvet revolution of 2018, Nikol Pashinyan has been persecuting and attacking the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Catholicos of All Armenians, and other clergy. 44-day war, surrender of Artsakh, ethnic cleansing, transfer of territories from Armenia, and now rapid processes are taking place around Syunik – the TRIPP project, etc.

Aliyev’s assistant Hajiyev, Azerbaijan’s foreign minister, leaders of various nationalist parties from Turkey, representatives of the government, ministers, etc., are making statements that the “Zangezur Corridor” will be completed soon.

Even Hajiyev and other Azerbaijani officials declare that the Armenian side has already taken some actions, carried out some local explosions, advanced the process… The leader of Turkish nationalist forces, close to Erdogan, Bahceli announced from Turkey that the Zangezur Corridor is the Great Turan. Parallel to this, the RA authorities are intensifying the relations with Russia and have resumed the campaign against the Church, the Catholicos…

What do these developments against the Church, against the Holy Father have to do with geopolitical processes? For what purpose did they target the Armenian Apostolic Church, His Holiness the Patriarch?

The main theses of the interview are below.

• The problem is to deprive Armenia of its subjectivity and push it out as a subject, a political unit that has rights, interests, the ability to formulate them, etc., turning the country into just an area where the competition between different geopolitical centers unfolds, and this competition is aimed at their place, role, areas of control, etc. in the new world order.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is a huge resource that gives subjectivity to the Armenian statehood, potential not only in the sense of internal identity structure (i.e. national identity, political consciousness, value system, etc.), but also in the sense of international role, of course, in the religious space. In geopolitics, the religious component is always one of the key ones, and especially in such historical periods, it becomes more important.

And from this point of view, the Armenian Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, with its international role in different regions, in different directions, also gives the Armenian statehood a right, an additional right. If, for example, we are in the Caucasus from the state point of view, thanks to the Armenian Apostolic Church, we can also have a much more comprehensive presence worldwide. 

• If the state and the church are able to act in a coordinated, harmonious manner, this mutually provides opportunities for the church to the state and the state to the church.

And in that case, we get a subjective opportunity and perspective in various other regions. I have talked about it many times. In the Middle East, which is the crucible of world politics and where extremely important issues are decided, we are essentially deprived of subjectivity in that region as well.

It seems that we, as a state, are not there, but our region is under the influence of the events unfolding in the Middle East itself (after the weakening of the Armenian factor, Azerbaijan is now trying to settle in Syria and Lebanon).

• The campaign against the Armenian Apostolic Church in general is a campaign to push Armenia, with its statehood potential, out of the Middle East, but also a campaign to weaken the church itself, where the church, as one of the ancient institutions of the world churches, also has rights there, and these rights cannot be ignored, because they are also internationally recognized rights, both in Jerusalem and in other directions. 

• The goal is for the Republic of Armenia to no longer have a significant subjective potential. In other words, yes, it will turn into just a territory, but where there will be nothing national. The national has been targeted, because our subjectivity, our state subjectivity is formed through the national, but the main task of these forces is to destroy the subjectivity of our nation and, of course, the subjectivity of the Armenian Apostolic Church. And, moreover, now, in fact, this is done by the hands of the Armenian state. 

• And that is the most tragic aspect of this situation, apart from the political and geopolitical ones, because the Armenian statehood was brought out against the Armenian Apostolic Church by the hands of the RA authorities (I mean the authority of that statehood).

And from this point of view, let me repeat, yes, this is a process of subjective destruction of the Armenian Apostolic Church-institute and the state of the Republic of Armenia. 

• And why do I say that the worst thing was that he actually made the society, at least the part that voted for Pashinyan, CP in these elections, an accomplice. And tomorrow he will say: you voted for me, you delegated me to go and make changes in the church, to take actions against the church, to appoint myself the Most Reverend Catholicos, etc., etc. 

• Armenian society should be able to correctly assess the situation and challenges and, accordingly, work out what to do in neutralizing these challenges. 

• Why did Pashinyan include his campaign against the Church, the Catholicos, in the pre-election program of the CP? I think that point was included in the KP program as an assurance of adherence to that line to external actors who support the maintenance of its political positions.

• The Armenian Apostolic Church is a competitor not only within the framework of geopolitical centers, but also with denominational (Catholic, etc.) churches. If there is a geopolitical struggle for a new role and place in the world, naturally, everyone is fighting for it, and everyone becomes everyone’s competitor, by and large. 

• It is very important for our society to correctly assess the problem, and we record that Pashinyan is one of the manifestations of that problem. Therefore, if we cannot assess the scale more precisely, we will not be able to correctly decide how to neutralize the challenge coming from that scale.

And in addition to considering this process as a challenge, it should also be considered as an opportunity so that we, as a society and Armenians, value the role of the church and also value the perspective of the church-state, church-state relationship. 

• There is a great deal to be done, one should focus on that to be done, thereby also neutralizing the challenges. We cannot win in that process with a symmetrical confrontation, because those forces fighting against the Armenian Church really have enormous, incomparable resources, abilities and influence in the world. Therefore, we can consider our chance only in an asymmetric process. That asymmetric process also implies making agreements with, for example, geopolitical, external competing centers, churches, forces. And what are the options for making that agreement? Either you make an offer, formulate your offer, which is interesting and discussable, with the prospect of agreeing on it, or you completely submit to the demands presented to you.

We need to do the work, to understand, in general, what kind of compatibility our church and the state have in the new world, what role they can assume and also offer to the world (at least to the political, religious, economic and other centers fighting for the world order).

I think this is the problem that we should be able to solve. And the rest, what is happening in Armenia (this campaign, the trial against Vehapar, etc.), are its metastases. If we correctly diagnose the problem at the global level and start developing that strategic idea (what we are doing), we will find the answers to these processes inside, I think, easier.

To remind: His Holiness the Patriarch delivered a message that day in the Mother Cathedral, in which he urged to be sober, not to give in to provocations and to remain firm in faith.

“… My father urges all of you to be sober and prudent, not to give in to provocations, insidious schemes, to remain firm in faith and hope, because God brings out good things for his Holy Church and the believing people from all malicious realities and trials. Our faith is also strengthened in tribulations, our constant dedication to God, motherland and the Church, unbroken loyalty to our sacred national-spiritual values ​​is demonstrated. In the face of external and internal threats, let’s strengthen our national unity, let’s make our process fruitful with patriotic and national-interesting deeds and according to the message of the apostle, let’s be strengthened by the Lord and the power of His power (Eph. 6:10). 

• His Holiness went to court because he was guided by the very logic that in this case it is the question of the relationship between the state and the church. In other words, he went to the state institute. Another question is what is the influence, attitude, etc. of the government of the same state towards that state institution. And thus, in my opinion, His Holiness has shown that the Armenian Apostolic Church stands before the state and does not go against the state or avoid the state.

In other words, by going to the court, the Catholicos of All Armenians, in my opinion, showed that he is not in any dispute or fight with the government, as this government tries to represent. And this, I think, is very important. If we look philosophically, I even mentioned that from that point of view the court stands before the Supreme Court and not the Supreme Court before the court.

And the logic would be completely different if the Catholicos of All Armenians refused to go. it would, of course, have the effect or impression of a rallying epitaph on many people. And many circles of our society, of course, during these years (not only after 2018, but also due to the activity of opposition forces before 2018) have been infected with the circumstance of measuring and evaluating the world by the epitaph of the rally itself. And this is very important, that is, not to enter into the logic of symmetrical confrontation. the church has no chance there either.

It is very welcome when the Armenian Apostolic Church does not enter into the logic of symmetrical confrontation and does not provide what this government is betting on and what, perhaps, is already being bet on by external and bigger beneficiaries.  

• Pashinyan’s statements aimed at the Eurasian Economic Union and Russia are aimed at internal consumption. One of the motives is an attempt to satisfy his electorate even after the election. In Kyrgyzstan, in my estimation, the most significant statement was made by Pashinyan in a conversation with journalists, when in response to the question about the situation around Armenia, Pashinyan used the following wording that this process of going to the EU is the result of the instigation of some EAEU partners, and it was obvious that he meant Lukashenko, because he clarified later that as if people said that we have nowhere to go, we don’t need anyone, and we didn’t perceive it negatively, but positive, and went on to show where we were going, etc.

Now it turns out that Pashinyan puts the actual responsibility for this process on Lukashenko. Because if Lukashenko had not instigated it, it actually turns out that Armenia would not have done all this. In other words, Armenia did not initiate this European course, but Lukashenko instigated it.

Against the background of what happened in Kyrgyzstan, he avoids responsibility for the situation that exists now. In my opinion, Pashinyan is starting a process in that direction. that is, he should think about gradually getting rid of the illusion of membership in the European Union. Not that he himself was in that illusion, but that he had formed that illusion among his electorate.

Now we need to get rid of it, because no one knows better and does not imagine that all this is a fairy tale and has no prospects than Nikol Pashinyan himself. This is obvious and has been seen for a long time in various allusions. He also spoke about this in the same Kyrgyzstan, when he said that we are ready to hold a referendum, but the referendum must have an object, and that object does not exist. And if, for example, we hold a referendum, the Armenian society will say: well, what road map are we moving on, it won’t be fair, what prospects are there, etc.

• When a country adopts a law on membership of the European Union, even with one letter or one sentence, it at least implies that there should be some concept under that law. And Pashinyan at least admits that there is absolutely no such perspective and idea. It was just a law arising from the situation, which aimed to create the illusion that he was going to the European Union, and based on that to form electoral votes ahead of the parliamentary elections. 

• Now, the moment of that referendum is very important in this regard. I wonder if Armenia can really give flesh and blood to that process by December, which is generated from Russia, the Eurasian Union and other countries, in the form of admonition or expectation. Because, in my opinion, the idea of ​​the referendum will fit into the goal of getting rid of the illusion of membership in the European Union. 

• And what will the European Union do, let’s assume Armenia refuses all that? The European Union has no other place in the Caucasus, except Armenia, and I think Nikol Pashinyan understands this well. Giving up Armenia means giving up the Caucasus, because we know what the situation is in Georgia, and Azerbaijan talks to them on an equal footing, and they also have a certain dependence on energy carriers and so on. Their only, so to speak, foothold in the Caucasus is Armenia. If they lose that, of course, they can start destabilizing actions, etc., but what prospects do they have there? This is a big question. Therefore, I think that the European Union does not have such a large flexible playing field in Armenia. 

• The whole story of TRIPP is that the United States is pushing the European Union out of the Middle Corridor. 

• The entire task of the United States is to prevent the formation of Sino-European economic-strategic communication, and this is another evidence that the assessment of this collective Western interest or manifestation does not fit into reality. 

• I don’t think there is an economic war between Armenia and Russia. Yes, a significant segment of Armenia’s economy is simply placed on the altar of political calculations and political interests, but this, in my opinion, is not an Armenian-Russian economic war.

• I have said many times that I consider the topic of CSTO as a topic used for propaganda purposes. 

• If the Ukrainian issue is so acute for Russia, then the Russians should have reacted with the same intensity in the case of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, but we see, for example, that the President of Kazakhstan speaks in the presence of Putin about the need to freeze the Ukrainian conflict, etc., and there is no acute reaction from Moscow.

• Many circles of the Ukrainian government may be looking for communication with Moscow, because, for example, it is not known what will be the fate of Zelensky and, in general, the fate of the remaining members of that team.

• When talking about Kazakhstan, one should take into account the situation in 2022, when the CSTO troops entered there (including under the presidency of Armenia), and the actual CSTO kept Tokayev’s power. And now it is also necessary to discuss, for example, what effect this circumstance has had during these years. But this does not prevent Tokaev from expressing his position regarding the Ukrainian war. 

• I completely disagree that Nikol Pashinyan is pursuing an anti-Russian policy. The apparent developments and statements are not sufficient indicators for me to conclude that an anti-Russian policy is being pursued. 

• It is extremely difficult for Russia to assume full responsibility here, because it simply does not have the ability to fulfill this responsibility. Therefore, it is very good if alibis for avoiding responsibility are formed for him here. With his policy, Nikol Pashinyan, willingly or unwillingly, gives Russia an alibi to explain its tactical retreat in the Caucasus and, in general, its policy towards Armenia. 

• Today’s situation allows us to conclude that these processes can cause certain swings or cracks within the government. There are certain movements or attempts to rock the boat, but I don’t think they will be fatal problems for Pashinyan. The European Union, as much as it tries to appear influential today, simply does not have the ability to do so. The EU has serious problems in the Caucasus itself, and does not have much room for maneuver regarding Yerevan and Armenia. Yes, they can resort to destabilizing tactics, but the big question here is whether they will benefit from it. 

Their only interest is the preservation of power through Pashinyan and the implementation of a policy that they imagine. However, the whole point is that what Pashinyan is doing today does not at all contradict the interests of either Russia or the United States. From this point of view, the big question is whether Pashinyan is doing what the European Union wants. The European Union does not really have much room for maneuver in the Caucasus and Armenia. 

• As for the claims that the socio-political forces under Western influence can overthrow Pashinyan, that resource is exaggerated. Moreover, it may sound strange, but a significant number of circles with an anti-Russian position have practically rendered a much more useful service to Russia itself than to the West. 

• When Pashinyan, for example, touches on the subject of the church in his pre-election programs, it is due to the fact that there are constant doubts about his political sentiments from outside, and he has to work to dispel those doubts. And when the EU asks if he is ready to review the Russian concession, Pashinyan says yes, he is ready to show that he is “in the game”. 

In today’s global all-vs-all war mode, he is forced to maneuver as much as he has the ability and resources to do so. If you sow intra-societal hatred inside and bet on it, you will have no room for external maneuver at all and you will have to put either Artsakh or Armenia’s economy on the altar. 

• The recently adopted paper on the EU was just a set of toasts, while the key and meaningful document on the ground for Armenian-European relations remains the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) signed in November 2017, which was ratified by the parliaments of all EU member states.

• Of course, it was announced that Armenia and the EU are signing a new strategic partnership document. But it was done precisely because CEPA has legal force and creates a clear responsibility regarding the Artsakh issue and its fundamental principles: territorial integrity, national self-determination and non-use of force. In fact, with its current policy, the European Union violates CEPA, which also stems from the fact that official Yerevan has de facto renounced all of that, dissolving the OSCE Minsk Group as well. All this coincides with the one year anniversary of the dissolution of the Minsk Group, which is one of the key circumstances of the politics of the last 4-4.5 years. 

• Formulations about sovereignty and territorial integrity are just a sign here. we all understand that we are dealing with de facto expropriation of the road. The American data center is also in the same logic (data centers), which was actually acknowledged by Pashinyan in his speech at its opening, noting that all this became reality in the context of August 8. Armenia has committed and provided space for this center, which in the digital world are actually military bases in a conventional sense.

Digital technologies have a significant impact on global processes today. Let’s remember that after the war unleashed against Iran, Iran targeted and attacked the artificial intelligence data centers of large American companies in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. The Iranians did it not just to cause damage, but very subtly and accurately realizing that these centers serve military and political goals. 

So, the opening of this data center in Armenia has no other great significance. it is part of the August 8 bundle. As for investments, it should be noted that almost 80% of the huge figures presented, even up to 4 billion dollars, are the money for the purchase of expensive equipment from US companies, that is, these funds will go back to the United States. Moreover, this program is de facto implemented in Armenia with Armenian financial resources. the majority of the investments of the first stage, about 300 million dollars, were provided through Armenian banks. It turns out that the USA gets another right, but the Armenian side de facto pays for it. 

The parallel is also interesting. the same company, in parallel with Armenia, signed a much larger investment agreement with Kazakhstan, where, however, it is planned not just to open a center, but to form a national artificial intelligence environment. In the case of Armenia, there is no mention of “national environment”. it is simply providing space for a center that will serve American interests while we suffer economically and environmentally. 

• Where are the ecologists and the “environmentalists” fighting against the mines now? Unfortunately, the majority of environmental movements operate at the behest of politicians. For example, Amulsar’s Western investment, once it reached the operational stage, was blocked, reshaped and turned into Armenian financing. However, there is nothing to compare here, because Amulsar had a real economic multiplier effect, while this center will provide only a few dozen jobs and will not increase the economic weight of Armenia at all. Naturally, any investment in Armenia’s economy is welcome, but the impact of this project and talk of billions of dollars are simply overstated. So this is another political project where business does its job. 

• Business behavior is understandable here, but the question is how effectively the state performs its functions. Has the Ministry of Environment measured and assessed these risks, has there been any oversight? This should be pursued primarily by those people who consider themselves selfless environmentalists. Unfortunately, these issues often serve political interests, while there is no adequate response either in the National Assembly or outside. 

• I repeat: I am not against investments in Armenia, but tomorrow we will face the problem of drinking water. If all this is done at the expense of Armenia’s resources and security, approaches must be radically changed, and relevant institutions must assess the real risks. In a political sense, however, it is obvious that this is part of the August 8 package. just as the Syunik Road was provided to foreign forces, the area was provided here to establish a de facto digital military base. 

• Azerbaijan is simply systematically and consistently doing what any country in its position should do. They work and make the most of the geopolitical situation and demand in the middle corridor. They demand a high price, while the government of Armenia, not having internal legitimate resources and building the game on the dividing lines of the society, conducts a policy of self-indulgence in the foreign field. 

• As for the issue of enclaves and the handover of Tigranashen, the government has already revealed its approaches. If they have accepted the existence of that issue, Azerbaijan will try to get the maximum. The foundations are laid and Azerbaijan will reap the benefits of this opportunity.

• Regarding the revenge and crossing of red lines against Gagik Tsarukyan and his family, I consider it reprehensible when the family is targeted and blackmailed for political revenge. However, such a gross violation of property rights, which undermines Armenia’s investment rating and the foundations of sustainable development, has unfortunately not received the principled reference of the elites since the period of the initial accumulation of capital in Armenia. If there was such reference, our history would have a different course.