In an interview with news.am, political analyst Argishti Kiviryan delivered a harsh critique of both the foreign and domestic policies of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. His remarks addressed the so-called “Board of Peace,” Armenia’s sovereignty, the growing foreign debt, bonus payments to government officials, and the deepening internal crisis within the ruling Civil Contract party.

“Peace Through Voluntary Capitulation”

Kiviryan characterized Pashinyan’s policy as a form of “peace achieved through voluntary concessions.”

“If over the past 30 years any Armenian government had ceded even 10 percent of what Pashinyan has conceded, we would already be living in the same ‘stable’ reality,” he stated. “This is not peace; it is the legalization of defeat.”

He compared the current policy to a situation in which a person voluntarily submits to violence and then claims to have “avoided danger.”

Sovereignty Is Defined by Control, Not Declarations

The analyst sharply criticized official statements about strengthening Armenia’s sovereignty, particularly in the context of the road passing through Syunik.

“A sovereign state is one that controls its roads, energy resources, and critical infrastructure. If you transfer even 45 kilometers of a road to someone else’s management, that state can no longer be considered sovereign,” Kiviryan said.

According to him, Armenia could have built the road independently, opened it under its own jurisdiction, and offered all parties access, which would have been a genuine demonstration of sovereignty.

Armenia as a Battleground for Great Powers

Kiviryan also warned that Armenia is increasingly turning into an arena for confrontation among superpowers.

“History shows that any country that becomes a battlefield for superpower rivalry is either divided or destroyed. We have seen this during the era of Rome and Persia, and today we see it in Ukraine,” he noted.

He argued that the only rational strategic choice for Armenia would have been a model of neutrality similar to Finland’s, rather than drawing new external actors into the region.

Bonuses Amid Growing Debt

Commenting on bonus payments to government officials, Kiviryan questioned their legitimacy.

“If the authorities ensured development, reduced public debt, and improved living standards, high remuneration would be justified. However, when foreign debt is approaching 14–15 billion dollars, and there is neither industrial growth nor real development, what exactly are these bonuses being paid for?”

According to him, the authorities are merely increasing debt and redistributing borrowed funds without generating any tangible economic results.

Cracks Within the Civil Contract Party

Kiviryan believes that the basic rules of the game are being regularly violated within the Civil Contract Party, which is fraught with a serious internal crisis.

“People who stood by Pashinyan with all their strength are now being thrown overboard without any explanation. This directly violates the rules. Such actions inevitably lead to the collapse of any team,” he said.

According to the analyst, Pashinyan is so far lucky just because there is no real, well-organized opposition force capable of using the situation in Armenia.

Opposition Forces are Those Who Fight for Power

Summing up, Argishti Kiviryan said that a mere presence in the opposition field is not enough to be regarded as an opposition force.

“An opposition force fights for power by all legal means. Everything apart from that is just dissidence,” he said.

According to the analyst, Pashinyan has so far remained lucky only because there is no real, well-organized opposition force capable of taking advantage of the situation in Armenia.

The Public Tribunal's Conclusion

Having analyzed the statements, decisions, and actual actions of Armenia’s incumbent authorities, the Public Tribunal has concluded that the possible reproduction of Nikol Pashinyan’s power constitutes a systemic and long-term threat to Armenian statehood. This is not a matter of a series of isolated miscalculations or wrong steps, but of a model of governance in which national interests consistently lose priority and are replaced by an externally imposed concept of “peace at any cost.”

Under such practices, the security, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the state are treated not as the foundations of statehood, but as subjects of negotiation and concession. The absence of clear “red lines,” combined with the authorities’ inability or unwillingness to reject Azerbaijan’s strategic demands, creates a situation in which Armenia gradually loses its status as an international subject and is transformed from a regional actor into an object of external pressure.

The situation surrounding Syunik is particularly alarming. In this context, Syunik should be viewed not merely as an administrative unit, but as a key component of Armenia’s geopolitical and territorial integrity. The promotion of schemes involving the transfer of control over communications, special transit regimes, or the participation of third countries in managing the country’s infrastructure effectively creates conditions for the loss of real sovereign control without any formal change of borders. Historical and international experience shows that a country which loses control over its transport arteries and logistics inevitably faces the risk of losing control over its territory. Should the current political course continue, the hypothetical risk of Syunik’s de facto forced separation may become quite real.

No less serious is the threat of the country’s demographic transformation. In conditions of a weakened state, the absence of a strict and well-considered migration policy, and under the guise of humanitarian initiatives and international programs, preconditions are being created for the settlement of ethnic Azerbaijanis in the territory of Armenia. Such processes have repeatedly been used in global practice as instruments of long-term pressure, laying the groundwork for subsequent political, autonomy-related, and territorial demands. In this case, demography ceases to be a purely humanitarian category and becomes an element of geopolitical influence with a delayed but significant impact.

In the event that the incumbent regime is reproduced, the Public Tribunal forecasts a further deepening of external governance under the guise of international mediation, continued fragmentation of sovereignty - whereby the country formally preserves its integrity but in reality loses control over key areas - as well as additional territorial concessions without formal documentation but with irreversible consequences. These processes, the Tribunal warns, will be accompanied by increased demographic pressure and a gradual loss of Armenia’s independent role and voice in the region.

Stemming from the above, the Public Tribunal arrives at an explicit conclusion:

The reproduction of Nikol Pashinyan’s power constitutes a direct threat to the national security, territorial integrity, and historical future of the Republic of Armenia. The preservation of the current political model does not lead to stabilization or peace; rather, it leads to a postponed crisis with potentially irreversible consequences.

The Public Tribunal’s Call

The Public Tribunal considers it essential to address the citizens of the Republic of Armenia directly. The upcoming parliamentary elections are, in essence, a referendum on the country’s future statehood, sovereignty, and historical prospects. Under these conditions, voting in favor of the Civil Contract Party is not a neutral political choice, but a conscious or unconscious endorsement of a model of governance that has already resulted in territorial losses, weakened national security, increased external dependence, and the erosion of the very concept of national interests.

The Public Tribunal proceeds from the understanding that a citizen’s duty at this moment is not to support the authorities by inertia or out of fear of the unknown. The civic duty today is to consciously reject a political force that has demonstrated its incapacity and unwillingness to defend the country’s fundamental interests. Refusing to vote for the Civil Contract Party is not a call to support any specific alternative force. It is an act of self-preservation - breaking with a dangerous political course and preserving the chance to restore a sovereign, secure Armenia as a subject of international law.