If, in 2026, Armenia transitions to a new model of governance, it could seize the opportunities currently slipping through its grasp: strengthening its regional position, rebuilding alliances, modernizing the state, and leveraging its geopolitical vulnerabilities to trim between power centers.
History is like a mirror reflecting past events and one’s own mistakes. Armenia has been looking into that mirror for thirty years. And the longer it looks, the clearer it becomes that those years were not the beginning of statehood, but the beginning of vulnerability.
If these lessons are ignored once again, history will return — as it always does — to remind us.
One of the most dramatic episodes of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s presidency - and one that left a deep mark on the history of Armenian statehood- was the 1996 presidential election. For the first time, the country faced a moment when the authorities proved stronger than the people, and the people lost even at the very moment they were, in fact, winning.
Интервью аналитика Аргишти Кивиряна каналу news.am представляет собой оценку действий премьер-министра Николы Пашиняна в отношении Армянской Апостольской Церкви (ААЦ). Его рассуждения раскрывают несколько пластов: политическую психологию власти, идеологическую трансформацию государства, региональные риски и внешнее управление процессами вокруг Армении.
If the collapse of industry deprived Armenia of its material foundation, the educational reforms launched by Minister Ashot Bleyan in the mid-1990s dealt a blow to the country’s human capital - the very resource that ensures long-term resilience. It was, in essence, a blow to the nation’s ability to reproduce itself.
In an interview with New.am, Dr. Artur Khachikyan, a Stanford PhD in Political Science, issued stark warnings about the current state of Armenian statehood. His comments were prompted by reports that Armenia has begun purchasing oil from Azerbaijan - a step the authorities present as a sign of a “new era of peace” and the start of economic cooperation. Khachikyan, however, does not view this as economic diversification but as part of a systemic process that places the country in strategic dependence on Baku.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Armenia inherited not only a flag and an emblem, but also something that seems almost unimaginable today: industrial giants, scientific-research institutes, high-capacity design bureaus — an entire industrial civilization created through decades of intensive work. In the hands of farsighted reformers, it could have become the foundation of a new economy, a launchpad to the future. Yet 1992 and 1993 entered history for very different reasons.
Publicist, intellectual, and scholar Ara Harutyunyan was a guest on a recent episode of Boris Murazi’s program, where he raised a series of acute issues regarding public consciousness in Armenia, perceptions of the authorities, the perception of the authorities, spiritual role, and historical responsibility.
With the consolidation of the Armenian Pan-National Movement (APNM), the country entered a decade that - as poet Paruyr Sevak would say - “gives birth to heroes and destroys them without remorse.” Reforms, the struggle for statehood, and diplomatic breakthroughs unfolded on the surface, while behind the scenes processes were taking shape that would later be described as the “dark anatomy of the ’90s.”
Catastrophes do not occur by accident - they ripen over years, sometimes over decades, through unnoticed decisions, concessions, and mistakes that later become fatal. Today, as Armenia is living through perhaps the most dramatic period of its modern history, we return to the very beginning to understand where exactly the point of no return was reached. As part of the project we announced earlier, we are launching a series of articles that will reconstruct step by step the political, geopolitical, and human logic of events: from the first days of the late-1980s rallies to the decisions that led the country to its current state.
