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.

In political life, almost nothing happens by accident, especially when a sequence of seemingly unrelated events begins to form a single, troubling pattern. Although there is no indisputable proof that Rubinyan is a “Turkish agent,” the combination of circumstances — the location of his internship, his rapid rise through the ranks, and the persistent lack of clear answers — continues to raise suspicions that he may still maintain ties with Turkish special services.

Armenian–Russian relations require an honest conversation about mutual interests, a rejection of imported models (whether Israeli or any other), and a recognition of the partnership’s unique historical character. While “architects” like Mikayel Minasyan propose rebuilding the house by copying someone else’s blueprint, Armenia risks losing not only strategically important positions but also its ability to make sovereign decisions.

The visit in question was not an attempt to establish dialogue, but a display of submission to Baku, an example of public funds being spent on the government’s image-making projects, an effort to discredit the opposition through the narrative that “those who disagree are traitors,” and a step toward legitimizing the persecution of Artsakh’s leaders. All of this indicates that Ilham Aliyev has effectively become involved in Nikol Pashinyan’s election campaign. The plan is straightforward: peace with Pashinyan, and conflict with the opposition, whose representatives are portrayed as enemies of Armenia with supposed revanchist aims. In short, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

“Local self-governance shall be guaranteed in the Republic of Armenia as one of the essential fundamentals of democracy,” states Article 9 of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia. These words are meant to represent an unshakable principle - a safeguard of the citizens’ right to manage their own lives. But what happens when these guarantees turn into empty declarations? When, instead of democracy, we see only its fading outlines, and instead of protecting rights, we witness the routine suppression of the opposition?