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”
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”
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”
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”