One of the key risks for the opposition is that, in the event of a sudden shift in the parameters of the election campaign - such as the refusal to register certain candidates, a pivot toward a referendum-centered campaign, or restrictions on voting from abroad - the time available to adapt to the new conditions would be minimal.

Serzh Sargsyan and Nikol Pashinyan — beyond serving the same geopolitical center — are known to share another common feature: the practice of making electoral promises that remain unfulfilled.

In a regular episode of his video blog, Artur Hambardzoumyan addressed one of the most painful issues — the money and policies behind what he describes as the liquidation of Artsakh. He attempts to connect decisions made by the authorities, the actions of the opposition, and the fate of the multi-billion-dram debts left in the wake of the republic’s collapse.

A fact worth recording: since 2018, the first defeat of Nikol Pashinyan in his struggle against the Armenians occurred in the processes initiated against the Church.

In February 2026, an unprecedented event in the modern history of Armenia took place. The Prosecutor General's Office of Armenia initiated a criminal case against Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II on charges of obstructing the enforcement of a judicial decision related to former clergyman Arman Saroyan.

Ultimately, “Real Armenia” is neither our Republic nor our fatherland. It is an artificial construct, devoid of history, roots, and humanity. Such “realness” threatens not only the cultural and spiritual fabric of the people but the very foundations of statehood.

As Armenians approach the polling stations in the summer of 2026, each citizen will be choosing not only among candidates and parties, but between national dignity and conciliation. In making that choice, the people must ask themselves whether they are ready to reclaim their memory, values, and strength or whether they are prepared to settle for exhaustion and the illusion of peace.

The sentences pronounced in Baku in early February went far beyond the boundaries of judicial proceedings or even the context of a regional conflict. They were neither an attempt to establish the truth nor an exercise in justice. Rather, they constituted a public act of punishment, meticulously staged under the guise of legality. The Azerbaijani authorities used the trial as a continuation of the war and as an instrument to reaffirm its outcome.

In today’s Armenia, tensions between the government and the Armenian Apostolic Church have long surpassed the bounds of political debate, taking on a distinctive and dangerous dimension for national identity.