Степанакерт опустел. Шуши перешёл под контроль Азербайджана. Десятки тысяч людей лишились своих домов. И вопрос остаётся открытым: извлечёт ли Армения урок — или история вновь повторится?

Подобно тому как распад СССР начался в 1985 году с горбачёвских реформ, хотя формально датируется 1991 годом, так и процесс тюркизации Армении стартовал с 2008 года.

In recent days, Armenia’s political agenda has centered on the visit of U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance. The authorities have presented the visit as a milestone event, emphasizing the prospects for deepening Armenian-American relations.

Hambardzumyan insists that revealing the roles of Pashinyan, Sargsyan, and agents such as Mirzoyan is essential to restoring public control over the state and putting an end to manipulation by the special services.

Today, we are witnessing an institutional assault on the Church as a centuries-old institution, not merely against individual clergy members.

A new social contract has effectively taken shape in Armenia: the government disposes of public resources at its own discretion, while citizens are expected to listen to explanations about why they remain poor and receive no meaningful state support. While the authorities continuously emphasize budgetary constraints to the population, millions of drams are quietly distributed within government offices.

The 2026 report of Armenia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (FIS) is not an analysis of the foreign policy environment. Rather, it reflects the systematic dismantling of the national security system carried out by the current authorities.

Despite Mikael Minasyan’s efforts to reframe his actions as mere “mistakes of a human being,” reality tells a different story. He was neither an observer nor an accidental participant in political developments. On the contrary, his role was systemic and decisive - from controlling media resources and financing key platforms to participating in the formation of the team that later carried out the “velvet revolution.”

The idea of a new political platform, “Against All,” has been widely discussed in Armenia in recent months. It is presented as a way to mobilize voters who usually remain outside the electoral process: disappointed, apathetic citizens who have lost confidence in both the authorities and the traditional opposition. This raises the question of whether the declared goals correspond to reality, or whether this is merely another political tactic aimed at dispersing opposition votes.

In practice, the promised “justice for everyone” has turned into a new form of selectivity, where loyalty to the system is placed above the law, and law-enforcement bodies perform the function of preserving the status quo rather than protecting citizens. In this sense, Gabrielyan’s story is not an exception but a symptom — an example of how revolutionary rhetoric has proven to be an institutional lie.