During today’s press conference, the member of the political council of the “Strong Armenia” party Narek Karapetyan announced that steps should be taken to normalize relations with Turkey, that the opening of the border is economically beneficial for Armenia, but that there is a question of economic structure.

“The economies of Turkey and Azerbaijan are agricultural production economies, they produce what the Armenian peasant produces. They do not consume what Armenians produce. They compete in economic structures other than gas and oil. We need a partner that buys our products, not sells them from our products,” he said, adding that Azerbaijan has very cheap agricultural products due to cheap gas, and Turkey also subsidizes gas and electricity.

As for the cooperation of the “Strong Armenia” party with various political forces in Armenia, the signing of memorandums, the last one was with “Hayakve”, that is, what is their political benefit, what is the calculation, and are they sure that there are no “criss” in their ranks, Narek Karapetyan said.

“We will not do CP to close ourselves in a small group and divide things among ourselves. Our main goal is the state system created on the basis of professionalism. The other, I am sure that 100 percent of our teammates are in a justified ideological struggle.”

Details in the video

—

During today’s press conference, a member of the political council of the “Strong Armenia” party, Narek Karapetyan, was asked by a “Pastinfo” journalist that Nikol Pashinyan has no desire to cede power and is even talking about the constitutional majority, which means that another outcome of the elections will be questioned.

In response to these questions, the representative of “Strong Armenia” assured.

“There are countless leaders in the history of the world who thought they could hold power against the will of the people. I do not think that the elections will be falsified, normal elections will be held, and the vote of every citizen is important, who does not stay at home that day, will make a great contribution to the future of his children. Be sure that our voices will be heard.”

Details in the video

—

Economist Tatul Manaseryan, founder of “Alternative” research center in my opinion, if Armenia negotiates with Turkey in the direction of re-operating the Gyumri-Kars railway, it should look a little further. According to him, it is not necessary to take some recent episode and announce that he wants to start and use that chicken.

“Armenia should see everything from a broad point of view. Is Turkey able to provide Armenia with an outlet to the Black Sea further by operating that section, or is it just a small section, and the rest will simply remain at Turkey’s disposal?”

Turkey is bound by 3 international conventions, which were ratified by the Turkish Parliament, and also by the Armenian Parliament, after many of my urgings, by which we can set a condition before Turkey.” 168.amTatul Manaseryan said in a conversation with , referring to the recent meeting of the delegations of Armenia and Turkey in Kars, during which the commissioning of the Gyumri-Kars railway was discussed.

According to the economist, the problem is that with all the conventions ratified by the Turkish Parliament, there is one general requirement: those who have access to the sea are obliged to provide such access to those countries and states that are considered landlocked, that is, they do not have access to the sea.

“According to those conventions, this process should be carried out by the landlocked country completely free of charge. In other words, we are transporting cargo through the territory of Georgia today, it violates international conventions, because Georgia has also ratified that convention, and it is stated in them that it should be provided free of charge, while Georgia takes transit money from us.

Here are the norms of elementary economic diplomacy, which the political diplomacy of Armenia and the political elite in general must master in order for the negotiations to be effective,” added Tatul Manaseryan.

According to our interlocutor, the steps he mentioned are to enable Armenia to gain its political independence, turn it into economic independence and use communications.

To the question, taking into account all the political processes, how interested is Turkey in launching the Gyumri-Kars railway today, the economist answered.

“Turkey is interested, first of all, in the first circumstance: that the eastern provinces and regions of Turkey develop as much as possible. The next circumstance is that Turkey has to show the world community that it is a civilized country and in this case it can do it thanks to the normalization of relations with Armenia. Thirdly, with this, Turkey can take a certain part in the positive development of processes in the region and lay the foundation for impartiality in the future, if it does not push forward conditions or preconditions.

Let’s remind that on April 28, the meeting of the Armenia-Turkey joint working group for the restoration and operation of the Gyumri-Kars railway took place in Kars. In the context of the expansion of transport communications in the region, the parties emphasized the importance of the early launch of the Gyumri-Kars railway. The RA Foreign Ministry issued an official message about this.

We should also remind that the Gyumri-Kars railway was closed in 1993, when the Armenian side was achieving success in the first Artsakh war by liberating the Armenian territories. Turkey stopped railway works in solidarity with Azerbaijan.

Years later, in 2005, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia signed an agreement on the construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway bypassing Armenia. On October 30, 2017, the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway with a total length of 826 km was inaugurated.

—

Mikael Minasyan writes: “Why did Robert Kocharyan not win in 2021 and will not win in 2026?”

This is not an omen at all, but a reality that has a very clear and solid explanation and background.

Let’s start with the background.

Robert Kocharyan’s biggest political defeat was not losing power and not being re-elected, but the fact that he never became “ours”.

Robert Kocharyan was a stranger. That alienation was felt from the very beginning of his Armenian political career, from the moment he was appointed the Prime Minister of Armenia. And that feeling did not disappear even when he became the president. Moreover, that estrangement was mutual. he felt like a stranger among the Armenians, and the Armenians accepted him with marked distance as a foreigner.

This phenomenon has several explanations. First of all, you have to be honest. we Armenians are often xenophobic, xenophobic, but at the same time we suffer from domestic racism. That racism was especially manifested against the people of Artsakh and Baku. It is interesting that the same attitude was much milder towards Armenians from Vira, Armenians from Russia or Diaspora Armenians. But tolerance towards the Armenians of Baku and Artsakh was almost zero.

What is more painful is that almost 35 years later, a significant part of the Armenian society repeats the same aggressive attitude towards refugees. At that time, they were intolerant towards the Armenians who came from Baku, today, towards the forcibly displaced people from Artsakh. Times, wars, authorities have changed, but the deep social reflex has remained the same. “they are not ours.”

Starting from 1998, Robert Kocharyan had a historic chance to alleviate mutual alienation. But he missed that opportunity. He let go because of his temperament, rudeness, rudeness, not fully knowing Armenia and Armenians, and not fully mastering his native language. He mocked those who mocked him. He responded not with integration, but with reverse contempt.

Today it is difficult to say what was the real source of his internal aggression. The rejection of the people, the contempt of the elites, or the complex of own alienation? But the fact is that the second president not only could not overcome this alienation, but also became its embodiment. The people did not see their sin, did not recognize their prejudices, but instead alienated themselves not only from the head of the country, but also from the entire political heritage associated with him: the Karabakh movement, the Artsakh victory, the symbols of victory.

Kocharyan’s personnel policy played a big role here. It seems that he deliberately appointed people who did not speak Armenian, or who spoke in a dialect, to the key positions of the government, and with their behavior and language they deepened the impression of a “foreign government”. From customs to power structures, from ministers to bodyguard chiefs, a government environment was formed, which for a significant part of the society became not a state system, but an imported group.

The same thing happened with the oligarchy. A significant part of the business elite of newly independent Armenia was originally from Artsakh, Russian-speaking or speaking the Artsakh dialect. This made it easier for the deep people to identify them as “foreigners”. Social injustice got a regional face. Monopoly became not only an economic but also a psychological category. People began to think not “we are being robbed”, but “foreigners are robbing us”.

Levon Ter-Petrosyan became one of the godfathers of that political and cultural alienation. Years later, in an archival video posted on the Internet, the first president humorously asked Kocharyan. “Boy, are you Armenian or Albanian, and do you know the Our Father?” What may have been said as a joke, the public took literally. Today it is difficult to say whether the historian president was consciously putting Kocharyan into a stereotypical trap or not, but the second president could not, and by and large did not want to, get out of that trap.

As a result, Robert Kocharyan was branded as a foreigner, alienating with him everything that Artsakh represented. The Karabakh movement, which was the dream of the Armenian golden generation of the 1980s, which was supposed to end with national unity and the dignity of victory, gradually began to be perceived as the property of a narrow group during the years of Kocharyan’s rule.

Victory no longer belonged to the people. The results of the victory did not belong to the people either.

The deep people saw that the real beneficiaries of the victory are specific people: those who received positions, business, monopoly and immunity. And at that moment, the Karabakh movement, which was born as a national awakening, began to be renamed “Karabakh clan” in public consciousness.

Levon Ter-Petrosyan gave political language to that formulation in 2008, when in his pre-election rallies he defined the current regime as a “Tatar-Mongolian yoke”. It was not just a rhetorical blow. He formulated politically what had been brewing in the subconscious of society for years. the power is not ours, the power is foreign, the power has come upon us.

And it was against this background that Nikol Pashinyan was perceived as his own. He can be “our” idiot, “our” hypocrite, “our” liar, “our” traitor, “our” revolutionary, “our” savior, “our” disaster or “our” saint, but he is ours. Here is the biggest pain and the biggest political tragedy. Because the society often forgives the disaster of its own more easily than the victory of a stranger.

When Nikol Pashinyan announces that he is closing the page of the Karabakh movement, it is not necessary to blame only the deep people for not understanding the scale of that historical tragedy. You should try to understand what those people actually hear. He does not hear “the Artsakh page is closing”. He hears something he has been waiting for for many years. “the page of the Karabakh clan is closing.”

And if the price of that closure is Artsakh, a part of the society is ready to pay that price because they have been convinced for years, or they themselves have convinced themselves, that Artsakh is a symbol of victory taken from them, foreign power and injustice. This is the most terrible thing. Not that the people do not like Artsakh. Other than that, in his mind, Artsakh has been separated from himself over the years, has become someone else’s history, someone else’s victory, someone else’s property.

And this is the heaviest legacy of Robert Kocharyan. He didn’t just lose the political battle. He lost in history because he could not keep the victory as national capital. He turned it into a government asset. And when victory becomes group ownership, defeat inevitably becomes nationwide.

Today we are facing that very tragedy. A nation that did not feel the victory as its own, does not feel the defeat as its own until the end. And until we understand this mechanism, we will continue to wonder how it was possible to close an entire national era without a nationwide upheaval.

The answer is harsh, but simple. that era was alienated from the people a long time ago. It required a scoundrel without values ​​to come and close a page which, in the eyes of a large part of the people, was already someone else’s book. And Pashinyan appeared. He did it with particular cruelty and hatred.
And despite the defeat and the war, he stayed because the Armenian people faced the Pashinyan-Kocharian dilemma.

Kocharyan promised to “carry”, and Nikol asked for protection from his people. And Kocharyan lost.

Today, five years after the defeat, he and his teammates insist that the “Armenia” alliance will overcome the 8 percent threshold with the same persistence as “we will carry” in 2021. In fact, it is not important whether they will get the coveted 8-10 percent or not. what is important is that there is no question of winning anymore, their main task today is simply not to lose.

Kocharyan cannot win, but with his image and presence, he revives public collective traumas, thereby preparing fertile ground for the reproduction of Nikol’s power.”

—

In Armenia, in one of the hotels in Aghveran, Armenian businessmen also participated in the meeting with the delegation headed by the Deputy Prime Minister of Azerbaijan, Shahin Mustafayev. Although the names of the businessmen have not been made public, it is said that among others, the businessman Samvel Aleksanyan, who has always been close to the government, and the people from the company belonging to the family of Khachatur Sukiasyan, the ruling “Civil Agreement” faction MP, were also present.

168․am–Hrant Mikayelyan, a political economistasked whether this should be considered an alternative offered to the economic community of Armenia, in case of possible conflicts with the Russian Federation.  Are they preparing for an alternative?

“Definitely, of course. All the statements of the authorities are about the need to integrate into the Azeri-Turkish political line. An example is the connection of energy systems. this is against the interests of Armenia, but they have already announced it.

Moreover, there are no similar statements from the other side.  they are satisfied with on-duty announcements about some processes. This is the integration of Armenia into the East-West corridor,” he said.

To the question of what Armenia can export, because we see, through Azerbaijan, import from Azerbaijan, even if it is demonstrative, I think there is, the specialist answered, first drawing attention to the question of what format this will take place.

“Let’s put the economic relationship aside. In the background of ethnic cleansing and genocide in Artsakh, trade and business are politically unacceptable. In other words, it shows that we say it is normal.

From the economic point of view: it is very important in what format these relations are established: equal or not. In other words, do we have the same opportunities as them, do we have the opportunity to enter any territory of Azerbaijan, trade, travel, etc., do we have guaranteed security? What relationship framework is established? Otherwise, a product is secondary from one side to the other,” explained Hrant Mikayelyan.

The economist drew attention to another reality. In recent years, Azerbaijan has been actively studying what Armenia exports to Georgia and Russia in order to replace it and create an alternative, pushing out Armenian producers.

“But, in any case, if free economic relations are established, they will definitely create some opportunities to trade and export, definitely a product worth 200-300 million dollars can be exported to Azerbaijan. Will Azerbaijan import something else or not, and to what extent will equal conditions be created,” he remarked.

To the question: what is RA’s alternative at the moment, if Russia’s positioning in the region is passive, Iran is in conflict, and the USA and the West are solving their own problems here?

“Yes, Russia has distanced itself in the region… but Armenia should not hope that it can maintain the entire external front with relations with one country or bloc. It is necessary to realize that a multi-vector policy is necessary, and it primarily includes not Russia and the West, but Asian and even African countries, and especially India, China, Iran, Arab countries, etc. There is a huge potential there, much higher than in the West,” he answered.

Hrant Mikayelyan responded to the observation that the RA authorities are not doing this now. “Definitely not. this government does the opposite. In recent years, we have not developed any additional direction, but Russia’s direction is gradually collapsing at the initiative of the authorities. In other words, the range of external relations is not expanding, but narrowing. we have de facto no new partners. There is an insignificant widening in the western direction, but it is mostly at the level of Pyar.

—

Yesterday, in the context of the restoration of the Gyumri-Kars railway, its economic, geopolitical significance and Armenian and Armenian-Georgian relations. about risks we talked Shiraz Khachatryan, an expert of the “Henaket” analytical center with

Today, one of the Azerbaijani propaganda media is day.az in the editorial also referred to the restoration of the Gyumri-Kars railway and made certain comments.

“Attempts to consider the Kars-Gyumri railway exclusively as a bilateral project between Turkey and Armenia ignore the regional reality. The South Caucasus is a system of interconnected interests, where the actions of one side inevitably affect the others. Azerbaijan is a key player in this system. Its economic, transport and political potential makes it an irreplaceable participant for any major regional project.

Moreover, Baku is the driving force behind the development of transport corridors, including the “Middle Corridor” and projects connecting Europe to Asia. And even trying to ignore this fact is a strategic mistake. It is obvious that the Azerbaijani-Turkish relations remain one of the stable factors of the development of the region, and they should be put or taken into account in the basis of any decision. Without this, any project runs the risk of turning into a stillborn initiative that will not withstand a collision with reality.” it is mentioned in the Azerbaijani analysis and it is reminded that any step by Turkey in the Armenian direction is considered through the prism of Turkish-Azerbaijani alliance relations.

Is this talking about a certain Turkish game, or about differences in some issues in Turkish-Azerbaijani relations? “Henaket” analytical center expert Shiraz Khachatryan we asked to discuss these issues this time.

According to him, there can be a Turkish game here, and taking into account that Turkey is playing its big game in the South Caucasus, this can also suggest the Baku-Ankara contradictions.

“It is possible that Turkey can take various steps to curb Azerbaijan’s whims, including in relations with Armenia. On the other hand, if we take a global look at where Turkey’s logistics routes go, from China through Central Asia to Europe, it is clear that at some point the still “unofficial” relations with Armenia may disappear. But, I repeat, Turkey is able to play with Azerbaijan’s nerves as well, to show that at any time such things are possible, such as a railway passing through the territory of Armenia, etc. In fact, the topic of the Gyumri-Kars railway is multi-layered, and here a separate geopolitical one for Turkey taking into account the ambitions, it is clear that it is also playing a separate game, regardless of the whims of Azerbaijan.

However, one should not ignore Turkey’s priorities at the global level: energy, logistics, extending to Central Asia, they are connected with Azerbaijan in many ways, so it will have to take into account not only the whims of Baku, but also the existing realities, if faced with a dilemma. And when I say that this is a multi-layered issue, I also mean that another step to strengthen Turkey’s position in the South Caucasus is the restoration of the Gyumri-Kars railway, within the framework of which there may also be goals of making Armenia economically dependent,” explained Shiraz Khachatryan.

—

On April 30, the National Defense and Security Affairs Standing Committee discussed the first reading of the draft law “On Amendments and Additions to the Law on Foreign Intelligence Activities and Foreign Intelligence Service” with an attached legislative package, which was presented by the head of the RA Foreign Intelligence Service Kristinne Grigoryan.

After the discussion in the parliament, journalists tried to get a comment from her on several issues: the war against Armenia from the outside, the possibility of war in the fall if Nikol Pashinyan is not elected.

To counter: if you don’t see any danger in Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, then what explanation would you give regarding this statement about a possible war, the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service limited with the following:

“The statement made in our public annual report is valid.”

And what claims were published in 2026? APS in the report:

RA external security risks. Possibility of escalation

■ As a result of intensively continued bilateral high-level negotiations in 2025, as well as the initial signing of the Washington Declaration and the Agreement “On the Establishment of Peace and Interstate Relations” achieved with the active involvement of US President Donald Trump on August 8, the probability of military escalation has significantly decreased, and the probability of a peaceful settlement has increased.

As a result of the comprehensive analysis of the mentioned and accompanying processes and data, we consider the military escalation of various scales between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 2026 due to the military-political intention to be almost unbelievable. We also consider such local actions or incidents, which are not caused by military-political intention, to be unlikely.

■ A comprehensive analysis of the service shows that in the long run The so-called “Western Azerbaijan” and “return of Western Azerbaijanis” speeches and accompanying actions promoted by Azerbaijan at the state level are a significantly negative and risky factor for peace building.։

The data of the service shows that After the Washington Declaration, Azerbaijan not only did not reduce, but also significantly intensified this propaganda, which creates significant risks for regional stability, security and long-term peace.

■ Service observations indicate that Azerbaijan’s military spending continues to increase. The basis for evaluating this issue as risky is not only the growth of net military expenditures, but also the fact that the rate of growth of military allocations significantly exceeds the rates of allocations in other sectors and in many cases, it is apparently carried out at the expense of other sectors. 

2024-2026 military and other spheres in the budget of Azerbaijan. allocations were compared to the same allocations in 2023. As a result, military allocations for 2026 increased by about 44%, and other sector allocations – by only 7.4%. In the case of 2026, there is even a slight decrease in non-military allocations compared to 2025, while military allocations for 2026 continued to increase.

■ Regional infrastructural and economic programs, although they are not the only driving force for institutionalizing peace, nevertheless, they have a great potential, on the one hand, to increase the price of military escalation in the region, and on the other hand, to offer the states of the region a strengthening of their own political and economic factor through involvement in these programs.

In the context of the last point, note that the report was published in January 2026, after which the US-Israeli war against Iran took place, and this allowed experts to talk about possible revisions of the TRIPP project.

By the way, in the context of military risks, let us add that The New Indian Express details said in connection with the results of the visit of Edward Asryan, head of the General Staff of the RA Armed Forces, to India.

Specifically, according to India’s Joint Defense Staff, “the parties have explored the possibility of establishing joint ventures in the development of military equipment,” indicating a shift from traditional buyer-seller relationships to joint development and local manufacturing partnerships.

According to the media, Armenia is studying the options of domestic production or integration of certain Indian-made defense systems.

At the same time it became known that Negotiations are underway over the cost of acquiring India’s surface-to-surface Pralay tactical quasi-ballistic missile systems as Yerevan seeks to bolster Azerbaijan’s long-range precision strike capabilities, including the Israeli-made LORA, according to Indian sources. missile deterrence.

In addition, according to the Indian media, Armenia is considering the possibility of acquiring long-range “Astra MK1” air-to-air missiles and possible modernization of its Su-30SM fighters.

Time will tell how accurate the information reported by The New Indian Express is, perhaps the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Armenia will speak about this at some point.

By the way, we sent requests to the defense department much earlier about the modernization of Su-30s and the acquisition of new ones, but the requested information was considered a state secret. However, in January of this year, to the question of 168.am: will we be able to use the Su-30SMs with their full power one day, RA Defense Minister Suren Papikyan answered. 

 “We have enough certain weapons for Su-30SMs, but additions are also expected. The Su-30SMs are pretty good fighters, I appreciate their role very much. And I think that they can play a big role both in air defense and territorial integrity of our country.”

—

The 8th summit of the European Political Community to be held on May 4 will be followed by the first Armenia-European Union summit, which will take place on May 5. The other day, Nikol Pashinyan announced during a briefing after the session of the RA government that he is waiting for all members of the European political community in Armenia, including the President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Earlier 168․am-ը, հղում անելով դիվանագիտական աղբյուրներին, գրել էր, որ Զելենսկին կժամանի Երևան՝ մասնակցելու Եվրոպական քաղաքական համայնքի մայիսյան գագաթնաժողովին: It is noteworthy that he was in Azerbaijan a few days ago. According to a number of estimates, the visit to Azerbaijan was conditioned by the need to maintain parity with the visit to Armenia.

It should be noted that on May 4, the 8th summit of the European Political Community founded by French President Emmanuel Macron will be held in Yerevan, which will be followed by the first Armenia-European Union summit on May 5. On those days, about 50 high-ranking delegations will arrive in Armenia, including the President of the European Council, Antonio Costa, and the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

French President Emmanuel Macron will also be in Armenia on May 3-5. He will participate in the summit of European leaders, after which his state visit to the Republic of Armenia will begin.

The upcoming visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Armenia to participate in the summit of the European Political Community is beyond the purely ceremonial field and has multi-layered political significance, especially in the context of Armenian-Russian and Armenian-Iranian relations. Armenia’s acceptance of Zelensky in Moscow will most likely be perceived not as a neutral diplomatic step, but as a certain geopolitical impulse. In that logic, Zelensky’s presence in Yerevan can be considered as another manifestation of Armenia’s more visible integration into Western platforms.

At the same time, Yerevan is trying to demonstrate a “multi-vector” foreign policy, not severing relations with Russia, but activating and deepening political ties with European structures and the West. These aspirations of Yerevan have received a number of messages, impulses, warnings from Moscow, and now, steps similar to economic “sanctions”.

Russia is beginning to react harshly to such “multi-vector” manifestations, especially from those countries that have traditionally been considered in its sphere of influence. Therefore, if Yerevan tries to present the visit as a normal diplomatic contact within the multilateral platform, Moscow will interpret it as another manifestation of political alienation.

In recent years, a crisis of trust has already been observed between Yerevan and Moscow. Zelensky’s visit can deepen that perception, especially in the Russian media-discourse.

Russia has concrete instruments of influence over Armenia: gas, energy system, labor market, business, so pressures are possible, taking into account that Armenian business is already starting to face problems in Russia. Most likely, Zelensky’s visit to Armenia will not cause a sharp break in Armenian-Russian relations, but it will become another impulse in the process of deepening mistrust and collision of different geopolitical vectors.

Vladimir Zelensky’s visit to Armenia within the framework of the European Political Community will most likely be perceived by Moscow not as a technical episode of the multilateral format, but as an indicator of political position. In Russia’s foreign policy thinking, the issue of Ukraine has a systemic importance, and any diplomatic activity related to Zelensky is considered in the context of this broad contrast.

Under these conditions, Russia’s response can be harsh, especially at the level of rhetoric and political impulses.

It is also not excluded that this visit will receive some reactions from the Islamic Republic of Iran, because during the US-Israel war against Iran, Vladimir Zelensky stood out for his strong anti-Iranian positions and statements, appearing in the center of attention of the leaders of Iran. It is difficult to say what the RA government gets by accepting the pro-Azerbaijani Zelensky. Maybe the European officials will once again be convinced that the RA authorities are steadfast in their commitment to European integration.

—

Arman Tatoyan, head of the “Wings of Unity” political initiative, writes: “Today is May 1. Labor Day…Not a working day. Most of the world celebrates this holiday.

In the history of Armenia, however, the first days of May are known for another reason. On April 30, 1991, units of the internal troops of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Soviet Army and the Azerbaijani OMON entered the Armenian-inhabited villages of the northern part of Artsakh.

In the first days of May, Getashen and Martunashen were “cleansed” of Armenians. villages were suddenly surrounded, men were arrested, women and children were deported in buses under surveillance, houses were looted, property and lands were handed over to Azerbaijanis.

The operation was called “Koltso”. Beginning on the actual May 1st, it lasted throughout 1991. summer, covered dozens of Armenian villages and became the last major punitive action of the Soviet army in its own territory against its own people. The USSR army deported Soviet citizens in trucks to the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs
(NKVD) with the methodical instructions inherited from the troops.

“Koltso” is the direct methodological heir of Stalin’s national deportations. The same troops, the same methods. the start of the operation on the same day as the holiday, the same logic. there is a population that prevents the solution of the problem, therefore it is moved. Only the formal reasons changed: “unreliability” in 1944, “passport regime” in 1991, but the essence of the procedure was the same.

In Artsakh, the architect of this model was Major-General Vladislav Safonov, the military commandant of the emergency region of Nagorno-Karabakh. For Azerbaijan, he is a hero with the nickname “iron general”. In the Armenian memory, he, like the whole action, was carefully pushed into the background, because remembering was inconvenient due to geopolitical considerations.

Why return to all this today and why exactly like this?
Not to say “Russia is bad, USSR was bad”. It is a pointless thesis. States are not “good” or “bad”. they have interests, resources and instruments with which they realize those interests.

USSR in 1991 was solving its problem of keeping Azerbaijan within the collapsing Union at the expense of the population of dozens of Armenian villages. An understandable, cynical, rational problem.
The problem of the Armenian political tradition lies elsewhere. It was built for decades on the thesis of “special”, “fraternal”, “inviolable” relations.

In theory, this is convenient, but in practice it is disastrous, because it interferes with calculation. It is difficult to see when Russian interests coincide with Armenian ones, and when they conflict. It is difficult to understand that the inactivity of the peacekeepers in Stepanakert in September 2023 was not a “betrayal of the company”, but a consistent implementation of interests that were visible for a long time, and never meant to sacrifice something for the sake of Armenia.

So that Koltso, Sumgait, Artsakh are not repeated, the solution is neither to restore the myth of “friendship” nor to reject it (for those who reject it, “Russia is an eternal enemy”, which is equally absurd).

The solution is a sober understanding: with whom do Armenia’s interests coincide, in which sector, on what issue, under what conditions?

Boring, unromantic, pragmatic work. But it is precisely the lack of it that has cost the Armenian people what it has cost them in the last 35 years.

Labor Day is a good occasion to remind that sober calculation is also work.”

—