Armenian-Turkish Conflict 2022-2023: Review and Outlook

By Grigor Hakobyan


In 2022, the Pashinyan government failed to develop a comprehensive foreign policy, restore the trust of the Armenian diaspora and most of Armenia’s citizens towards the government in Armenia, or acquire new allies to enhance the security of Armenia. Furthermore, it failed to fully restore Armenia’s military capabilities or register any significant accomplishments in the foreign policy arena. The last two years were marked by substantial territorial losses by the Republic of Armenia and the unpreparedness of the Armenian leadership, both military and political, to take adequate steps to defend the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia.

The political incompetence of the Pashinyan government and failure to take advantage of various geopolitical dynamics unfolding in the region has further undermined the security of the Armenian Republic. Unless the government in Armenia changes and the fake “opposition” forces cede the ground to real political opposition forces, both will continue dragging Armenia down until Armenia is on its knees and unable to fight back against its enemies. With the beginning of 2023, Armenia’s future remains blurry while the probability for resumption of large-scale conflict, or a total Armenian-Azerbaijani war, remains very high. 

Continue reading “Armenian-Turkish Conflict 2022-2023: Review and Outlook”

Border Escalations in Syunik and Gegharkunik Provinces and the Coming Armenian-Turkish War

By Grigor Hakoyban


            Several days ago, Azerbaijani troops invaded Armenian territory in several directions. One direction that they intruded was towards Vardenis, another one towards Djermuk, third one towards Sisian, and the fourth one towards Goris by capturing most of the Sev Lich (Black Lake) and several hilltops around the lake that overlook strategic highway going through Armenia, which connects Yerevan to Goris and Goris to Khapan. The Azerbaijani contingent that captured Sev Lich was able to intrude into Armenia’s territory three and a half kilometers deep. The contingent was made up of several hundred Azerbaijani special forces without encountering any resistance. According to Armenia’s Ministry of Defense, the roads leading to the positions occupied by Azerbaijani troops on Ishxanasar Mountain are under Armenian control, making it harder for Azerbaijan to supply its forces on the mountain top. In the meantime, according to some political observers in Armenia, two Armenian military positions also positioned near the mountain top are presently surrounded by Azerbaijani troops.

            Surprisingly, the Armenian armed forces didn’t fire any shots to stop the advancement of enemy troops or make any attempt to arrest them. According to undisclosed sources within Armenia’s military, the soldiers were orders not to shoot. It is somewhat surprising that so many enemy troops were able to intrude 3.5km deep into Armenia’s territory without meeting any resistance on the part of Armenian armed forces. Furthermore, the Russian border troops stationed in Syunik Province didn’t do anything to counter the intrusion despite the fact that the Azerbaijani forces have violated not only the border of Armenia but also the border that falls under the security responsibility of the CSTO, which Armenia is a member. That leads some political observers to assert that there is a secret agreement between Armenia, Russia, and Azerbaijan, that people do not know about, which allowed Azerbaijani troops to capture the mountain top without any fighting.

Continue reading “Border Escalations in Syunik and Gegharkunik Provinces and the Coming Armenian-Turkish War”

Regional Aspects of Preparation for the Election Campaign in Armenia

By Hrachya Arzumanian


Preparations for early elections in Armenia have entered the stage of forming political blocs. We can talk about three blocks representing oligarchic groups and a scattered patriotic field. Given the nature of the confrontation, it is impossible to exclude the emergence of a “joker” – an actor capable of radically changing the balance of power in the election campaign.

The geopolitical blitzkrieg of Russia and Turkey on the division of spheres of influence in the South Caucasus fails when other power centers are drawn into the confrontation. The pressure of the victor countries based on military logic is no longer enough to force Armenia to cede part of its state sovereignty over Syunik. In the current situation, Armenia has the opportunity to wait for qualitative changes in the region while maintaining the status of a democratic country.


Preparations for early elections in Armenia have entered the stage of formalizing the political blocks of the upcoming election campaign, which is unfolding within the framework of the oligarchic system of government that has developed in Armenia. The formed pre-election blocs represent certain oligarchic groups preparing for the redistribution of power and spheres of influence, but not intending to solve the complex problems of overcoming the national crisis, ensuring the security and development of the Armenian state, and society.

The reluctance of the oligarchic system to solve the problems of state-building and security is well studied in the academic literature. From this point of view, the situation in Armenia is not unique. The oligarch will not set the task of systemic/revolutionary reforms designed to transform the nature of power and economy, contribute to the restoration of Armenian statehood, and construct a new Armenia. From this point of view, the formed pre-election blocs do not differ from each other, and early elections in Armenia, as expected, will not have a political nature. The election campaign will be based on a negative PR campaign and a confrontation between the images of the leaders of the blocs[1].


The process of forming three pre-election blocs around the leaders can be considered completed today: the current government headed by Nikol Pashinyan; Robert Kocharian; and political forces representing the interests of Serzh Sargsyan and Mikael Minasyan.

The first two blocks remain in the focus of attention of experts and the public, and the expected steps and predicted behavior are well represented in the information field; however, the third block remains primarily hidden due to the non-public form of participation in the election processes and the struggle chosen at this stage. Serzh Sargsyan and Mikael Minasyan play a more complex game. Based on the information available in the public space, it is extremely difficult to conclude whether they are playing within the same team with a common goal and strategy or whether we are talking about two different political forces.

Within the framework of this work, Serzh Sargsyan and Mikael Minasyan are considered as one block. The chosen form of the power struggle is a consequence of the restrictions imposed on the election campaign by the security environment of Armenia after the war. The results of the war are directly associated with the name of Serzh Sargsyan and only indirectly with Robert Kocharian, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, and other politicians at the national level.

To date, there are no apparent signs that patriotic forces are managing to overcome problems and move from scattered socio-political groups and parties to a nationwide initiative and a bloc capable of participating in the election race as an independent socio-political force. The patriotic field remains incoherent and, on the whole, under the strict control of oligarchic groups or external centers of power that impede the formation of an independent bloc. This is a natural state and a phase of political struggle where political forces not interested in forming a new Armenia impede the formation of an alternative capable of implementing systemic/revolutionary reforms that will allow for the transformation of the oligarchic system.

It is not possible to say today whether the patriotic forces will be able to form a national bloc. The situation is complicated by the state of the patriotic field, weakened by the results of the war, the loss of a significant part of potential and resources, including human resources. We can talk about the urgent need for candidates with the potential to become national political leaders.

Nevertheless, the nature of the confrontation, which includes the human factor, does not exclude the possibility of the formation of a patriotic bloc or a force capable of taking part in the election race. Considering the nature of the unfolding election campaign from which its political component is absent, the opposing blocs are attempting to preserve/ take power using negative information campaigns against each other. Under such conditions, one cannot exclude the appearance of a “joker” – an actor capable of radically changing the balance of power in the election campaign.

The very nature of such an actor excludes the possibility of assessing the likelihood of its appearance. Such an actor can be a new or little-known party in the socio-political arena, or even an individual person capable of forming a patriotic bloc with his will and energy, capable of making changes in the scenario of the future election campaign built by external centers of power and the oligarchic system.

Regional aspects of domestic political life

The formed blocs of the upcoming pre-election struggle have no differences in foreign policy. They intend to fulfill the obligations undertaken by Armenia following the results of the Artsakh war in 2020. Both Nikol Pashinyan and Robert Kocharian talk about the support they have from Moscow, viewing such statements as a factor strengthening their positions in the election campaign.

Considering that the Armenian authorities have transferred the tasks of ensuring military security to the Russian troops, such an assessment of Russia’s role in the internal political life of Armenia has a right to life. Residents of Armenia, especially in the eastern regions, perceive the military presence of Russia as an established reality in the conditions of the paralysis of the Armenian statehood. The dominant control of the political field by Russia makes it extremely difficult to form alternative political forces capable of offering a different strategy for overcoming the national crisis.

However, the changes taking place in the regional security environment and the geopolitical arena are forcing the Armenian authorities and society to adapt, even though the formed political blocs do not notice these changes. By now, it can be stated that the geopolitical blitzkrieg of Russia and Turkey for the division of spheres of influence in the South Caucasus has failed because the confrontation in the region is taking the form of a viscous positional struggle, into which other regional and geopolitical centers of power have also been drawn.

During the Artsakh war, Iran spoke about the impossibility of dividing the South Caucasus between Russia and Turkey and firmly declared that it was unacceptable to change the state borders in the region. The inability of Russia and Turkey to “put the squeeze” on Armenia, forcing them to take practical steps to create communication corridors in Syunik already in the spring of 2021, as planned in November 2020, makes it doubtful whether this scenario can be implemented on the terms formulated in the ceasefire statement. The pressure from Russia and the bellicose statements of Turkey / Azerbaijan is no longer enough to force Armenia to cede part of its state sovereignty over Syunik.

The ceasefire declaration implicitly implied a closer integration of Turkey / Azerbaijan into the Russian Eurasian space[2]. However, apart from everything else, such integration conflicts with the interests of many regional and geopolitical centers of power, primarily Western ones, which have clearly stated the undesirability of this scenario.

President Biden’s statement on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire (Metz Yegern) by the United States contains the following statement: “We do this not to cast blame but to ensure that what happened is never repeated”. This wording places Turkey and its allies under severe diplomatic restrictions for conducting an aggressive military campaign against Armenia. Erdogan’s public statements about the need to complete what his grandfathers started with the mention of Enver Pasha, one of the architects of Mets Yeghern, after the next wave of recognition of the Armenian Genocide becomes quite difficult to implement, given the difficult internal political situation in Turkey and the financial crisis.

During a telephone conversation last week between the President of Russia and France, the parties agreed on the need to resume the work of the OSCE Minsk Group. The US Secretary of State, in a telephone call to President Aliyev, “noted the importance of continuing the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to find a lasting political settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for the benefit of all people in the region.”

Thus, the political part of the November 2020 ceasefire statement, within which Artsakh’s status was considered closed by the winning countries, can be considered revised. Azerbaijan’s reluctance to fulfill its obligations on prisoners of war nullifies another point of the statement. This allows Armenia to raise the issue of the inability of Azerbaijan and Russia to fulfill their obligations and stress the need to revise the statement regarding the communication corridor through Meghri.

Today, Russia and Turkey / Azerbaijan seek to put pressure on Armenia by appealing to military threats and the possibility of unleashing the next hot phase of the conflict in the South Caucasus. However, given that the Western centers of power have firmly and unequivocally expressed their position, it seems quite problematic for them to substantiate the right to initiate a new war.

The implementation of the proposed policy requires on the part of the Armenian authorities the ability and will to resist pressure from Russia and Turkey, intending to complete the process of creating a communication corridor bypassing Georgia through Armenia on their own terms. In the current conditions, Armenia can set its own conditions for creating a corridor, taking into account the Armenian statehood’s sovereign rights and economic interests. However, there is no such will today, and there is also no political force participating in the pre-election struggle that can win and change the game. Such a policy of resistance could be declared within the framework of the future election campaign by the “Joker” after receiving the unconditional support of the Armenian people and a number of centers of power.


The escalation of military tensions around Ukraine on the part of Russia, the deepening socio-economic and political crisis in Turkey, the beginning of the withdrawal of Western troops from Afghanistan, the advancing negotiations between Iran and the United States are changing the regional security environment and the game in the geopolitical arena. Russia and even more so Turkey are unable to wage a full-fledged military confrontation in all theaters of military operations on the geopolitical arena because of limited resources.

In the current situation, Armenia has a chance to gain a foothold in its existing positions and not make new concessions, waiting for qualitative changes in the region and the world and preserving the status of a democratic country and civil society. A political force capable of articulating and starting to implement this strategy will begin to shape the stage of Armenian political life following the early elections.

Author’s Bio: Hrachya Arzumanian, Doctor of Political Science, PhD in Computer Sciences. Academic Fields: Complexity thinking in Policy, Strategy, National Security and Military sphere. The author of ten books and more than 300 papers, articles and reports. Former Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Artsakh (2006 to 2020). The chief of branch on preparation of work of Security Council of Artsakh (2006-2008). The Chief of IT Service of Artsakh Defense Army from 1995-2001.  

[1] Arzumanian, Hrachya. “Early Elections in Armenia: Challenges and Opportunities,” Ararat Institute for Near Eastern Studies, 12 April 2021. On-line access 29 April 2021. <;

[2] Arzumanian, Hrachya. “The Strategic Context of Relations Between Russia and Turkey in the South Caucasus and Eurasia,” Ararat Institute for Near Eastern Studies, 10 December 2020. On-line access 29 April 2021. <;

Early Elections in Armenia: Challenges and Opportunities

By Hrachya Arzumanian


The ongoing self-organization processes allowed the Armenian society to move to the stage of forming larger socio-political associations based on micro-groups. Armenia’s current situation does not allow us to say whether the society will be able to form an alternative pole of social and political forces for early elections.

The Armenian government has created a situation of unfolding an image election campaign when the political struggle comes down to a clash of personalities who are symbols of the present and the previous government. The intention to speed up self-organization processes and the formation of an alternative pole force us to accept the proposed conditions for conducting an election campaign when time and resources become a critical parameter.

Continue reading “Early Elections in Armenia: Challenges and Opportunities”

Early Elections in Armenia in the Context of Deepening National Crisis

By Hrachya Arzumanian


Recent opinion polls show that the 17+ political bloc has the support of several percent of the Armenian society and cannot claim any serious representation in parliament. The Armenian society does not accept the previous authorities and does not intend to vote for them. The same opinion polls show that most of the Armenian society does not accept other opposition political forces and politicians and intends not to participate in the elections in the absence of new and influential political and social forces, initiatives, and individuals. According to the principle of the previous and current authorities, the artificial division of the Armenian political field, the formation of an imaginary opposition is intended to hinder the emergence of influential socio-political forces capable of consolidating the Armenian society.

The decision to hold swift elections without making the necessary changes to the electoral legislation makes it possible to create conditions for the reproduction of power in a disoriented society. During the rally phase of the confrontation between the armed forces and the prime minister, the latter displayed its ability to resort to administrative resources. Such facts do not allow us to speak with confidence about the possibility of observing electoral procedures and rules during the election campaign and on election day.

Continue reading “Early Elections in Armenia in the Context of Deepening National Crisis”

Prospects for Overcoming the Deepening Crisis of the Armenian Statehood

By Hrachya Arzumanian


The deepening systemic crisis led to the armed forces’ involvement in Armenia’s socio-political processes, despite the fact that they were not ready to participate in this step. The army’s erroneous tactics allowed the Prime Minister to initiate the resignation process of the Chief of the General Staff, creating a regime of dual power that Armenia did not wholly overcome.

The fact that the Armenian society is in a state of psychological breakdown does not allow it to organize itself to influence the authorities’ political steps. The crisis is further aggravated by the Armenian state’s inability to control its borders and the victorious countries’ policy meant to weaken Armenia as much as possible by not allowing it to conduct an independent policy and participate in regional processes. The Third Republic’s critical weakness confronts the Armenian people with the choice of deciding to build a new state or abandoning the idea of ​​reviving the Armenian statehood.

Continue reading “Prospects for Overcoming the Deepening Crisis of the Armenian Statehood”

Deepening Political Crisis in Armenia

By Hrachya Arzumanian


 Armenia struggles to get out of the deep crisis after the military defeat in the Artsakh war. In the last days of February, the political crisis developed into a state crisis, when it is now necessary to operate not only with the categories of political space but also of state sovereignty.

The deepening political crisis in Armenia is a consequence of a number of foreign and domestic political factors that can lead to a cumulative effect. Of the internal political factors, the decisive role is played by Armenia’s political leadership, whose motives cannot be assessed without conducting public, political, and judicial scrutiny. This is also true for a number of high-ranking political and military leaders who have been in power throughout the entire post-Soviet period of Armenia, including the 17+ political forces that are part of the alliance.

Continue reading “Deepening Political Crisis in Armenia”

Analysis of Post-War Armenia and the Way Forward

By Grigor Hakobyan


November 9th, 2020 was not only the end of the active stage of hostilities between Armenian and Azerbaijani-Turkish armed forces on Artsakh’s territory but also the end of Armenia’s third republic, something that the present government doesn’t appear to realize. Presently, Armenia’s government doesn’t have the same public support that it had a few years ago and symbolizes Armenia’s defeat not only on the battlefield but also in the diplomatic arena. Armenia’s present political and geopolitical situation is similar to a drowning person with hands handcuffed behind his back on his way to hit the bottom of the pool. Attempting to break the handcuffs at this point and try to swim up to the surface will do more harm than good and become the cause of his eventual drowning. The solution to the present situation is to wait until it hits the bottom and then spring up towards the surface while breaking the handcuffs in the process. To accomplish that, the Armenian people must take their future into their own hands and through grassroots efforts, rebuild Armenia from the bottom up, shaking away its upper echelons of power who no longer represent the Armenian people and pursue foreign and false agendas to the detriment of Armenian people and the security of the Armenian state. The sooner Armenian people wake up, the more time they will have to change its present trajectory leading the country and the nation to its final demise.

Continue reading “Analysis of Post-War Armenia and the Way Forward”

Post War Armenia and the Way Out of the Present Crisis

By Grigor Hakobyan


The abrupt, unexpected, and tragic end of the Forty-Four Day War in November of 2020 has left the Armenian nation scarred, humiliated, and further divided not only in Armenia but also in the diaspora. Continuous anti-Armenian actions taken by the present government of Armenia and its political leadership are further reinforcing the view that it is very incompetent, if not treasonous, to be able to lead the county out of the present crisis and undertake the necessary steps to strengthen Armenian statehood to be able to withstand the next crisis looming on the horizon. The longer it tries to hold on to power by increasingly resorting to authoritarian methods to suppress people’s discontent against its rule, the higher is the probability for the public uprising that will not be necessarily peaceful or forgiving.

Continue reading “Post War Armenia and the Way Out of the Present Crisis”

Trends in the Social and Political Life of Armenia and the Principles of Forming the Frame of the Armenian Statehood

By Hrachya Arzumanian


The Artsakh war continues to shape challenges and threats to the Armenian statehood. The most significant external factors of destabilization remain the policies of Russia and Turkey, which are interested in maintaining the condition of crisis instability in Armenia. Armenian politics and diplomacy must solve the problem of returning geopolitical and regional actors, pushed out by the war from the process of the Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) conflict settlement. However, Armenian politics and diplomacy remain reflexive, which is a consequence of the action of not only objective and institutional but also subjective factors.

Processes of socio-political self-organization are unfolding in Armenian society, which needs a catalyst and acceleration. Given the narrow horizons of strategic forecasting, one can only talk about the basic principles of the formation of the frame of the Armenian statehood, including the revision of relations with the diaspora, inclusiveness, and the construction of the “fortress Armenia” as an element of a broader system of security and development.

Continue reading “Trends in the Social and Political Life of Armenia and the Principles of Forming the Frame of the Armenian Statehood”

Regional War or Economic Development: Challenges and Threats of the Moscow Summit

By Hrachya Arzumanian


The summit in Moscow focused on issues of partial restoration of the region’s transport infrastructure, but not on military and political issues. The architecture of the region and the processes taking place in it are formed within the framework of two different logics: economic development and military. One can speak of the contradictory nature of the Moscow summit, when discussing the problems of economic development and infrastructure development, its participants operated with the categories of military logic. However, the formation of the future architecture of the region solely within the framework of military logic is doubtful, and the agreements reached are unstable, since they may conflict with the interests of other actors who did not participate in the summit.

Continue reading “Regional War or Economic Development: Challenges and Threats of the Moscow Summit”

Legal Aspects of Relations Between Republics of Armenia and Artsakh: past, present and future

By Hrachya Arzumanyan


The ceasefire of 2020 created a number of diplomatic and political problems in relations between Artsakh and Armenia and in the international arena. The relationship between the Republics of Armenia and Artsakh remained unregulated for the post-Soviet period when the Armenian state approached the war with uncertain legal status in relations between the two republics. Winning countries having resolved the problem of Artsakh within the framework of politics and the strategy of “fait accompli” which have formulated the results of the war that were signed by Armenia’s Prime Minister creating legal, diplomatic and political collision while disfranchising the residents of Artsakh from political and jurisdiction rights. The Armenian statehood and the government need to start formulating their approach to the problem of Artsakh’s status change and its residents, and towards the future of the Artsakh conflict regulation. 

Continue reading “Legal Aspects of Relations Between Republics of Armenia and Artsakh: past, present and future”

Armenia’s Manifest Destiny

By Grigor Hakobyan


The humiliating defeat of the Artsakh Defense Army and its supporting armed volunteer fighters from Armenia during the 44 Day War has prompted a lot of soul searching among Armenians around the world. The outcome of the war was very unexpected due to Armenia’s MoD’s false narrative, which consistently lied to people for the entire duration of the war, insisting that the Armenian side was winning the war only to find out later on that the Armenian side was losing the war. Illegal ceasefire declaration that was forced upon Armenia and dutifully implemented by the Pashinyan’s government as if it was a binding international treaty has outraged Armenians not only in the mainland but also abroad. Furthermore, ceding territories that were under Armenian control at the time of the ceasefire declaration despite the fact that the ceasefire declaration allowed each side to maintain territories under one’s control at the time of the signing of the infamous declaration has prompted legitimate concerns among Armenians everywhere that there were additional points of agreement between Pashinyan and Aliyev that the Armenian people were not told about.

Continue reading “Armenia’s Manifest Destiny”

Analysis of Political Crisis in Armenia: current trends and possible resolutions

By Hrachya Arzumanian


The crisis in Armenia continues to deepen and expand. Taking advantage of the Armenian government’s inability to control the situation in the country, Azerbaijan seeks to quickly solve the problem of demarcating the border with Armenia in its favor. After the Artsakh catastrophe, the society in Armenia has not been able to overcome the state of shock and the ruling political force has focused for more than a month on retaining power instead of addressing the military-political, socio-economic and moral-psychological challenges and threats to the Armenian people and their statehood.

The state of the army remains difficult, having to solve many critical problems urgently. First of all, there is the task of forming a new territorial defense system after the loss of the military infrastructure of Artsakh, which has been built for 25 years and cost the Armenian people several billion dollars. In the conditions of a temporary and unstable ceasefire, it is urgently necessary to make a defense system in Armenia capable of stopping the further advance of the Azerbaijani army under the pretext of border demarcation, etc.

Continue reading “Analysis of Political Crisis in Armenia: current trends and possible resolutions”

The Dilemma of War or International Law in the History of the Artsakh conflict

By Hrachya Arzumanian

The Dilemma of War or International Law in the History of the Artsakh conflict

By Hrachya Arzumanian


Within the framework of the Artsakh war of 2020, the effectiveness of using war to solve the regional problem was clearly shown. In the 90s, when Azerbaijan was a failing state, the Nagorno-Karabakh issue could have been resolved by Armenia with large-scale military actions. The Azerbaijani army was retreating indiscriminately. However, the Armenian side agreed to switch to diplomatic settlement methods within the OSCE Minsk Group framework by agreeing to an indefinite ceasefire in 1994. Simultaneously, one of the conflict settlement philosophies’ principles was the exclusion of military force and the use of exclusively political and diplomatic methods.

Continue reading “The Dilemma of War or International Law in the History of the Artsakh conflict”

The Strategic Context of Relations Between Russia and Turkey in the South Caucasus and Eurasia

By Hrachya Arzumanian


The existing strategic context of the South Caucasus makes it possible to speak about the tactical victory of Russia and the strategic victory of Turkey and Azerbaijan in the Artsakh war. Moreover, in this conflict Russia operated as a regional center of power while Turkey sought to increase its weight, claiming to be an actor in the geopolitical arena (1). Considering Russia’s experience of operating in the geopolitical arena a question arises-what could have been Russia’s ideological and strategic calculations when it made the decision to invite Turkey to solve the problems of the South Caucasus ?

Continue reading “The Strategic Context of Relations Between Russia and Turkey in the South Caucasus and Eurasia”

Brief Analysis of the Forty Four Day Armenian-Turkish War

By Grigor Hakobyan


The defeat of the Artsakh Defense Army during the Forty Four Day War surprised the majority of Armenians around the world. Significant territorial and human losses were shocking not only to the people residing in the Republic of Armenia but also in the diaspora. The whole media coverage of the war both in Armenia and diaspora was primarily based on the official narrative created by Armenia’s MoD which claimed that the Armenian side was winning the war and that it was planning to go into a counteroffensive soon. Although the Armed Forces of Armenia have been acquiring offensive weapons for a while and were boasting about their ability to carry out preemptive strikes at any time, they choose to do so in reality the political leadership didn’t have the will and the military leadership couldn’t sustainably wage such an offensive war. Previous claims of military superiority created a false sense of security among people residing in Artsakh, the Republic of Armenia, and diaspora which contributed to the feelings of shock and dismay that they all experienced during the aftermath of this war.

Continue reading “Brief Analysis of the Forty Four Day Armenian-Turkish War”

Strategic Context of 2020 Artsakh War

By Hrachya Arzumanian


Russian strategic thought seeking to return Armenia and Azerbaijan to the orbit of its project with military tools while cutting off the possibility of another choice for the countries of the South Caucasus did not take into account the existence of an alternative in Azerbaijan. Instead of returning to the Russian project for the revival of USSR 2.0 / Russian Empire within the framework of which it was created, Azerbaijan chose to join the 21st century’s Turkish project to revive the Ottoman Empire. In other words, speaking of Russia’s unconditional tactical victory in the region one should also speak of Turkey’s strategic victory and Russia’s loss of positions. Russia has created the necessary preconditions for conducting irregular and hybrid military operations outside of the theater of operations of the Middle East/North Africa on Russian territory by its own efforts.

Russia, having developed and implemented a project to dismantle the de facto state of Artsakh and form an even tighter dependence of Armenia upon Russia created the necessary conditions for the emergence of a regional power center led by a NATO member in the South Caucasus and its southern borders. Moreover, we are talking about ideologically motivated Turkey (neo-Ottomanism, Pan-Turkism, Islamism), which a number of de-ideologized Russian people are ready to meet with a standing ovation in a number of Russia’s regions and in Central Asia the integrity of which today is maintained exclusively by the idea of ​​conservation of Eurasia within the realities of the 20th century.

Continue reading “Strategic Context of 2020 Artsakh War”

Armenian-Turkish War: Review and Analysis

By Grigor Hakobyan


While the American mainstream media was busy discussing the fly on Mike Pence’s head during Vice Presidential Debate, the Armenian-Turkish conflict entered the second week of violence across the entire line of contact (LoC) between the Republic of Artsakh and Azerbaijan as many regional and extra-regional powers have taken a neutral stand and watch attentively from the sidelines. An attempt by Azerbaijani-Turkish and ISIS-linked formations to encircle Artsakh by taking over its strategic communication highways with the Republic of Armenia while carrying out devastating blows against the Artsakh’s Defense Army in a new and enhanced blitzkrieg strategy has failed dramatically. The Anti-Armenian coalition led by Turkish generals got bogged down in the north and south of Artsakh as the scale of the attack begins to whimper and exhale its last breath. Armenian churches, towns and villages now bear the brunt of a losing barbarian who willingly sacrifices the lives of his own citizens to sustain his bloodthirsty rule in Baku.

Continue reading “Armenian-Turkish War: Review and Analysis”