“Today, I pay tribute to the memory of 1.5 million Armenians who were killed during the Armenian Genocide,” American reality show star Kim Kardashian wrote on her social media pages, referring to the 111th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.

Kardashian noted that being Armenian has greatly shaped the way he perceives the world. “It’s part of who I am and how I was brought up. Visiting Armenia with my family was one of the most impactful experiences of my life, and it deepened my connection to my roots in a way that I carry with me every day.

Today I pray for the Armenian community, as well as for all the people around the world who are suffering, that their lives will be protected, their voices heard, and their pain not ignored,” Kim Kardashian wrote.

The star of the Armenian nation attached photos from his visit to the Tsitsernahaberd memorial to his post.

—

The symbol of Artsakh “We are our mountains” monument is in danger of being completely destroyed. Artsakh’s cultural heritage ombudsman, vice-president of “Azkayin” historical and cultural NGO Hovik Avanesov calls out about this.

“We are our mountains” monument, which is also known as “Grandfather and Grandfather” (Mamik and Papik in Western Armenian), is one of the symbolic monuments of Armenian identity, historical memory and cultural heritage. It was created in 1967 by sculptor Sargis Baghdasaryan and architect Yuri Hakobyan. This monument made of red tuff, about 9 meters high, is placed on the top of the hill, symbolizing the inseparable blood relation between Artsakh land and people.

The sculpture represents elderly Artsakh spouses in traditional costumes, standing shoulder to shoulder, with a proud and steadfast attitude. It does not have a pedestal, it seems to come from the soil itself, embodying the deep roots of the people and the inseparable connection with the motherland. It is no coincidence that this work has also received high praise on international platforms, being presented at a prestigious exhibition organized in the Italian city of Carrara and being recognized as a world cultural asset.

However, the history of the monument is not limited only to cultural achievements. Back in the Soviet years, it faced political resistance in the face of open opposition from the leadership of Soviet Azerbaijan. Despite these pressures, the monument was erected, becoming a symbol not only of art, but also of resistance.

On September 19, 2023, just days after the large-scale military operations unleashed against Artsakh by the Turkish-Azerbaijani terrorist tandem and the subsequent complete occupation of Artsakh and the forced displacement of Artsakh people, on September 29, the Azerbaijani forces placed the Azerbaijani flag on the monument on the day of the occupation of Stepanakert, demonstrably violating its historical and cultural significance.

In November 2024, photos and videos shared on social networks documented new cases of vandalism. damages and Armenian-hating, insulting writings were recorded in both the front and back parts of the monument. The surroundings of the monument were also damaged. At the same time, announcements regarding the complete destruction of the monument are actively circulating in the official and unofficial circles of Azerbaijan.

It is noteworthy that a similar scenario has already been applied to St. Jacob’s Church in Stepanakert and St. Astvamor Hovanu’s Cathedral, whose destruction was preceded by propaganda publications with the same content. This circumstance raises serious concern that the “We Are Our Mountains” monument faces the same fate.

—

The other day, information was spread on social networks that the contract soldier son of the head of the security team of the “Strong Armenia” party, detective Artur Avanesyan (Kandaz), was removed from one of the special purpose units of the armed forces.

Ministry of Defense 168.amsources inform that the contract of Artur Avanesyan’s son has expired and it has not been extended. It is possible that this decision of the leadership of the Ministry of Defense is political. Artur Avanesyan himself and “Strong Armenia” did not address this topic.

Let us remind that the head of the security team of the “Strong Armenia” party, colonel-investigator Arthur Avanesyan (Kandaz) on March 31 remindedTaken during Anna Hakobyan’s visit to Tavush on April 1, 2023 the statement that 11,000 deserters was during the 44-day war, stressing. “Our soldiers are not deserters, they fought like lions, and your husband left our soldier defenseless, without a weapon.”

Anna Hakobyan decided not to react don’t leave the detective’s video-reminder, which was followed by Nikol Pashinyan’s the response.

—

US President Donald Trump delivered an annual address on the 111th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, describing the tragic events of 1915 as a Genocide.

“Today we pay tribute to the memory of the countless Armenians who were exiled and brutally killed during the Genocide.

This cruel chapter of human history will remain forever as a testimony of the unbreakable spirit of the Armenian people and the hope underlying Christianity. We pay our respects to the profound strength and determination that Armenians have shown in overcoming the tremendous tragedies of the past and building a better future defined by lasting prosperity, security and peace. We stand by them,” said Trump’s message.

In the address, Donald Trump also spoke about the relations with Armenia and the Peace Council he created, noting that the USA and Armenia will continue working together to build a safer and more prosperous world. “My administration is strengthening our strategic partnership, creating significant opportunities for the Armenian people and promoting long-term stability throughout the South Caucasus region. And now, Americans and Armenians stand side by side in the historic Peace Council, united in our goal to usher in a new era of peace through force,” Trump said.

The Armenian Committee of America has stated that it “strongly condemns President Donald Trump’s continued retreat from America’s recognition and commemoration of the Armenian Genocide.”

According to the commission’s executive director Aram Hambaryan, Trump once again shamefully gave in to Turkish threats, “continuing, for the sixth time, to implement Ankara’s policy of silence against the honest mention of that crime by America, despite the recognition by the White House, Congress, all fifty states and more than a dozen NATO allies.”

“After the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Armenian population of Artsakh by Azerbaijan, in the background of the ongoing occupation of Armenian territories, the mistreatment of Armenian prisoners, and the destruction of Armenian Christian heritage, the United States is obliged not only to tell the truth about the 1915 genocide, but also to stop its complicity in pan-Turkist attempts to end that genocide,” stated the executive director of the American Armenian Dat Office. By the way, in his April 24th address, Nikol Pashinyan mainly used the term “Great Genocide”, using the term genocide in his reference only once. times.

US President Donald Trump’s avoidance of the term “genocide” and the use of the expression “Great Genocide” is, of course, far from being just a linguistic tact. Avoiding the formulation that implies clear responsibility in the domain of international law, Washington pushes the Armenian issue out of the field of legal claims and moves it to the level of ethnic tragedy. This allows Turkey to avoid historical responsibility and continue its current policy towards Armenia without international legal consequences.

The current American administration’s “mediation” efforts between Armenia and Azerbaijan are actually shaping a regional security architecture where the interests of Azerbaijan and Turkey come first.

Trump’s approach implies “peace” at the expense of vital Armenian interests, where Armenia is not considered as a sovereign entity, but as an obstacle in the way of economic deals with the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem, which must do everything to integrate into that sphere of interests. Such a policy contributes to Azerbaijan’s fundamentalist ambitions by legitimizing Azerbaijan’s preconditions and other demands.

The supremacy of Turkish-Azerbaijani interests by the US subordinates historical justice. By using the term “Great Uprising”, Washington gives a political “green light” for Ankara to continue its pan-Turkist plans, which directly contradict the sovereign development of Armenia. In this context, the American mediation turns into a tool, within the framework of which Yerevan must give up its national ambitions for the sake of energy and logistics projects beneficial for the West.

Ultimately, such a political line leads to the pulverization of Armenia’s international subjectivity. When a superpower avoids legal assessments and adapts to the aggressor’s agenda, it effectively isolates Armenia, leaving it without real alliance guarantees. This is not a mediation of peace, but a preparation for the concession of positions, where the interest of the Republic of Armenia is sacrificed for the sake of strengthening the Turkish hegemony in the region and American short-term pragmatic interests.

—

On April 20, with the article “What is behind Onik Gasparyan’s offer to speak at a closed meeting, what open questions are waiting for his open answer?” by article we referred to Onik Gasparyan, the former head of the General Staff of the RA Armed Forces statement-offer, which was the answer of the former Minister of Defense of the Republic of Armenia Seyran Ohanyan and media mogul Aram Gabrielyanov’s episodic statements and “declassifications” related to the 44-day war.

As of now, the authorities have ignored or rejected the proposal of the former head of the State Security Service to organize a closed meeting, to which Onik Gasparyan suggests involving key political and military positions held during the 2020 war, political and public figures with appropriate permission to access data containing state and service secrets, and relatives of dead and missing servicemen.

We asked the question in our article: what did the former head of the State Security Service not say during his two-day and nearly 10-hour interrogation at the 44-day investigative commission? 168.amthe wrote also, that the written analysis of Onik Gasparyan, the former head of the RA Armed Forces General Directorate, was attached to the report of the investigative commission headed by Andranik Kocharyan, with a limit of 70-80 pages.

And although the parliamentary opposition did not participate in the commission’s work, opposition MPs, for example, Gegham Manukyan, Tigran Abrahamyan, got acquainted with the report and the argued analysis of Onik Gasparyan.

Therefore 168.amhas tried From Tigran Abrahamyan, secretary of the NA “I have the honor” faction to find out if there is something that was not discussed by the former head of the General Assembly Onik Gasparyan, perhaps he expects that the opposition will have the opportunity to ask him questions this time, although their answers will not be reflected in the report.

– Onik Gasparyan’s speech, which is presented in the report and in a separate appendix, naturally expresses his approach, ideas about his decisions and actions during the war, and this happened in the presence of CP figures. A political group that is most responsible for the outcome of the 44-day war and its severe consequences. And what each official talks about his decisions and actions is another thing, and what is the reality is completely different. And in this situation, if Onik Gasparyan has something additional to say, especially if it is of great importance to the public, then it must be said, and sincerity and the truth will be appreciated afterwards.

– At the moment, the authorities consider the closed meeting pointless. In this case, how do you imagine the closed meeting of the former head of the General Assembly with the opposition? By the way, were there any such impulses from Onik Gasparyan?

– From the beginning, the position of our political force was that a closed-format meeting with the presence or participation of CP members will not solve any problem, and I myself have announced that I am not going to be a participant in such a meeting. If Onik Gasparyan considers that he has something important to say in terms of public interest and would like to meet, then the issue of its format will naturally be a subject of discussion.

– By the way, the close circle of the former head of the General Staff rushed to say that his demand to speak publicly is not correct, what is it, should he publicly tell what happened during the 44-day war?

– I don’t even want to know who thinks that there is no need for the former head of the General Directorate to speak publicly, perhaps everyone has their own approach. But we must not forget that Onik Gasparyan was a military man with the highest status, and he definitely has something to say to the public. It is clear to all of us that there are issues that can represent state and military secrets, but Pashinyan and his teammates made “declassifications” related to the circumstances of the war during the 6 years after the war, not to mention that quite a lot of time has passed, and some issues and decisions may not have the significance they had 6 years ago. Who is this? From this point of view, not speaking publicly can be seen as avoidance in terms of coming into direct contact with the public.

– What questions do you personally have to ask the former head of the GSH?

– Naturally, there are such questions:

First, regardless of the reports at that time, when the probability of war was high, why weren’t the troops brought to “preparation number one” in time, especially when, according to Nikol Pashinyan, reliable information about the start of the war was received on September 25, 2020?

Second, why is he not talking about the September 13 report of the National Security Service of Artsakh, because, according to reports, reliable information about the start of the war was recorded on that day, even probable days?

Third, According to Onik Gasparyan, why was there no result after the February 2021 statement of the General Staff?

fourth, was there pressure on him from outside to express his position and expose Pashinyan’s crime?

– I have other questions, but now we are not talking about them. And you, I’m sure, have ever communicated with Onik Gasparyan, possibly even long after the war, what impression did you get, as a military man in general, is his silence only due to the desire not to disclose information containing state secrets?

– Some may consider me an optimist, but, according to me, the reason for Onik Gasparyan’s not speaking is that, in his opinion, voicing anything in the case of the Pashinyan government will not solve any problem. And maybe that’s why he doesn’t want to talk, but as an official with great responsibility, if not completely, then in general terms, he should express what he has to say publicly.

—