The Public Tribunal regards the ongoing developments as a threat to the national security, national unity, and spiritual sovereignty of the Armenian people. We consider it inadmissible to exert pressure on the Catholicos of All Armenians, to discredit the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, or to involve the clergy in political scenarios that serve the interests of the authorities.

Stanford University professor Artur Khachikyan has sharply criticized Armenia’s incumbent authorities, accusing them of deceiving the Armenian people and failing to fulfill the promises made during the 2018 “Velvet Revolution.” According to him, the authorities not only failed to eradicate corruption but, in many respects, surpassed the previous regime in both corruption and incompetent governance.

The loss of Karabakh became one of the most dramatic events in Armenia’s recent history. Yet the widespread perception that it was merely the result of military defeat or a series of tragic miscalculations oversimplifies reality. Karabakh was not simply lost; it was gradually removed from the political framework in which it still had at least some chance to exist in one form or another. This was not a single moment of failure, but a multi-stage process unfolding over years and formalized through diplomacy.

In his regular YouTube address, Arthur Hambardzoumyan raises issues that are either deliberately avoided in Armenia’s public discourse or pushed to the margins of public attention. In his assessment, over the past few years, the Armenian people have gradually become accustomed to developments that would have been considered unacceptable not long ago.

According to experts from the Public Tribunal, the processes under review point to a structural crisis in the interaction between the state, the Church, and society. In its current form, Nikol Pashinyan’s policy contributes to deeper societal division, a reduction of institutional autonomy, and the weakening of mechanisms of national consolidation.

The summer of 1997 became not only a moment of external pressure, but also a moment of internal ideological rupture, for which Levon Ter-Petrosyan bore personal responsibility. His article “War or Peace: The Moment of Seriousness” was presented as an act of sober realism. In reality, however, it amounted to an ideological formulation of a defeatist logic that was inherently unfavorable to Armenia. Instead of challenging the externally imposed “chess game,” the president effectively accepted the role of a lesser piece, justifying strategic concessions by fatigue from war, rather than by the necessity to continue the struggle.

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.

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.

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.

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.