EVN Report
  • Home
  • Magazine
  • SALT
  • Podcast
No Result
View All Result
  • Eng
    • Հայ
Support
Աջակցություն
EVN Report
  • Home
  • Magazine
  • SALT
  • Podcast
No Result
View All Result
  • Eng
    • Հայ
Support
Աջակցություն
Morning News
  • Eng
    • Հայ
No Result
View All Result
Home Opinion
May 6, 2025

Putting an End to “Celestial Armenia”

Gaïdz Minassian

Listen to the article. 


Your browser does not support the
audio element.

Thus, the prime minister launched the debate between “real Armenia” and “historical Armenia”. The image is pertinent, the comparison a bit less so, because the word “historical” poses a problem—history being a social reality, a human science that falls within the realm of the real. What if instead of “historical Armenia”, Nikol Pashinyan had used the expression “celestial Armenia”? Wouldn’t that be even more apt? But what exactly are we talking about here?

The expression “celestial Armenia” draws its particularity from both ancient and new precepts of the construction of Armenian identity in the space-time relationship. Ancient, because it is linked to the antique formula of “celestial Jerusalem”. New, because it supplants the prime minister’s term “historical Armenia”, an expression more geographical than political anyway and associated with “Greater Armenia”.

What is the origin of celestial Armenia? It is less the conversion of Armenians to Christianity than the adoption of the Ephesus creed during the eponymous council convened by the Eastern Roman Emperor, Theodosius II, in 430, which is at the origins of this sacralized Armenia.

In what context did the Council of Ephesus take place? In a dark period of Armenia’s history and its fall of sovereignty. The Council of Ephesus was held in 430, nearly 50 years after the partition of Armenia between the Roman Empire and the Persian Empire in 387 and two years after an even greater collective trauma: the annexation of Armenia by the Persians in 428. The Council of Ephesus therefore took place after two profoundly tragic events. It is important to keep this in mind to better understand what follows.

What is the meaning of this double ordeal? It suggests the idea that the real world is not made for Armenians—that it is too conflictual, too brutal. The partition of the Kingdom, followed by the erasure of Armenia as a sovereign state, signaled a descent into chaos for this ancient people. It was as if the political and religious elites (the great families) feared reality itself: the balance of power, the world as it truly is, shaped by conquest and hardship imposed by stronger neighbors upon the dominated. In response, Armenians withdrew from the world, retreated from real time, and spread a collective fear that ultimately froze their behavior for an indeterminate period. Yet even in this retreat, they held on to a quiet hope—a belief in the miracle of rebirth, and the dream of realizing a celestial Armenia.

How does the Council of Ephesus align with this double ordeal? The theological debate of the time revolves around the dialectic between the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ. Are human beings creatures descended from Heaven, or autonomous beings rooted in the material world? At Ephesus, the bishops gathered in council declared that Jesus was essentially of divine nature, and only through the Word—through orality—was he also of human nature. The unity of Christ is certainly preserved, but the relationship between the spiritual and the temporal is made in favor of the former.  

For the Armenian Church, which became Monophysite, Jesus, like humanity, and like the Armenians themselves, was conceived in the image of God and descended to Earth by the grace of God. Their relationship to reality is translated only by the Word, only the words of Christ make the Kingdom of Heaven visible and real. Reality, then, was affirmed, but remained intangible. Presence in the world was acknowledged, but not through the corporeal body; rather, Armenians were spiritual beings, their essence not material but divinized. In other words, at the collective level, Armenians were present without truly inhabiting the world—they existed within it but did not fully belong to it. They distanced themselves from the real, temporal and material realm, seeking instead refuge in the Kingdom of Heaven as the Kingdom of Elsewhere. The earthly world, marked by the trauma of partition and annexation, had become unbearable and corrupted by human sin. The Council of Ephesus thus became an invitation to ascend toward the Kingdom of God, toward imagination and faith, governed not by geopolitical power but by divine law—a realm where authority resided not in earthly kingdoms but in the temple of belief in Christ’s message. Thus Armenians withdraw from the real world to find refuge in celestial Armenia…

What happens in this celestial Armenia? By withdrawing from the real world, Armenians under the impulse of their Monophysite Church, also severed ties with the Chalcedonian Churches, which, in 451, reversed the conclusions of Ephesus. The Council of Chalcedon declared that Jesus possessed both a fully divine and fully human nature. The Armenian Church, condemned as heretical by Rome, reaffirmed the creed of Ephesus during the Councils of Dvin in 506 and 555. In doing so, it distanced itself from the broader Christian world and sanctified celestial Armenia as a form of spiritual sovereignty, like a hidden treasure buried in the field, echoing the parables of the Kingdom of Heaven. Thus, in this celestial Armenia, this paradise or this garden of Eden, everything is pure, unblemished, absolute. And because the Kingdom of Elsewhere knows no earthly borders, its contours shaped instead by faith in dogma and in sacred landmarks scattered across the earth (churches, monasteries, khachkars, etc.), the realm of the imagination becomes a boundless sanctuary, governed only by canon law. In this spiritual domain, the Armenian is neither citizen, nor subject, nor consumer; he is merely a servant, a sheep in the fold of God. In celestial Armenia, where all is sacred and idealized, sin has no place, and human responsibility is rendered meaningless—because man has entrusted his destiny entirely to divine providence.

Everything, then, is sublimated, magnified and rendered absolute: justice becomes Justice, freedom becomes Freedom; right becomes Right, independence becomes Independence, union becomes Union, and truth becomes Truth—each concept elevated to a sacred, untouchable ideal. In such a paradigm, there is no room for an ethic of responsibility, no space for compromise, political sense, or negotiation. Any concession is seen not as pragmatism but as weakness, even betrayal, an act that threatens to undermine the very foundations of celestial Armenia.

Who, then, are the guardians of celestial Armenia? They are many. First, there is the Armenian Apostolic Church, both Etchmiadzin and Antelias, bringing in its wake, through ecumenical ties, the Armenian Catholic and Protestant churches. Then come the traditional Armenian political parties: the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), the Social Democratic Hunchakian Party (SDHP), and the Ramgavar Liberal Party (RLP). Finally, we find the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU) and the broader constellation of traditional Armenian institutions with their newspapers and local chapters.

Why these organizations? Because none of them draws a clear line between the political and the religious. Each of them accepts that the religious dimension stands on equal footing with the political, which then becomes subordinated, whether to the religious (as in Etchmiadzin), to ideology (as in the ARF), or to culture (as in the AGBU). Etchmiadzin, by its very nature and vocation, is the spiritual epicenter of celestial Armenia. The AGBU, operating with a hierarchical, near-medieval structure centered on the authority of a single leader, mirrors the Catholicosate in form and function, Etchmiadzin and the AGBU thus appear consubstantially linked.

As for the ARF, it has served as the secular arm or the avenging sword of celestial Armenia since the death of its founder Christapor Mikaelian in 1905. After his passing, the Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) withdrew from the practical sphere of politics to drape itself in the “virtuous” domain of ideology, preserving internal unity through abstraction rather than action. In doing so, it projected itself toward the heavens, a leap into the symbolic, since its call for a “Free, Independent and Reunified Armenia” issued 1919, became nothing less than the avatar of celestial Armenia. In other words, the “Greater Armenia” of the ARF, the “Armenia of the three seas” espoused by the AGBU (a vision originally attributed to Nubar Pasha) and the “Armenia of Ephesus” of the Church all converge within the mythic construct of “celestial Armenia”.

Can celestial Armenia then be realized? No and three times no; first, because the international community does not want it. To pursue celestial Armenia is to clash with the forces and constraints of the global order. Second, because celestial Armenia is an ideal, a Kingdom of Heaven, that cannot be achieved in this world but accessible only after the death of those who believe in it. Hence the enduring slogan “freedom or death.” And finally, because the Armenian state, in its very restoration and assertion of sovereignty, stands as a profound obstacle to celestial Armenia. 

And here we are…

Is celestial Armenia, then, opposed to the sovereignty of the Armenian state? Yes, and here we arrive at the core of the current debate in post-Soviet Armenia and its diasporic extensions. The regimes that governed Armenia from 1991 to 2018 may not have actively played the celestial card, but they allowed themselves to be drawn into the orbit of celestial Armenia—what Nikol Pashinyan calls memorial Armenia, or historical Armenia—at the expense of restoring actual sovereignty of the State. This Kingdom of Heaven, which does not and cannot exist because it rejects earthly reality, is fundamentally incompatible with the sovereign Armenian state recognized by the international community within its current borders. That State belongs to the world of humans and sin. As such, it is cast as a traitor and an enemy of celestial Armenia, just as Pashinyan himself has been in the eyes of the servants of celestial Armenia, because he risks defiling the ideal by grounding Armenia in the flawed, compromised and corrupt world order.

But who, then, truly benefits from celestial Armenia? Primarily Russia, which since its 18th-century presence in the Caucasus, has understood that the most effective way to assert its imperial dominance is to exploit the servants of this celestial Armenia. From St. Petersburg to Moscow, Russia has encouraged Armenians to dream and the right to dream of a celestial Armenia, solely as a means of advancing its own expansionist interests. Yet, Russia not only turns Armenian dreams into nightmares, it also denies Armenians the right to fixed borders—those markers of sovereign states—offering only with fronts, the mutable boundaries of empire. Moscow tells them: “Dream, my little Armenian brothers, dream of Greater Armenia, but don’t dare to think of yourselves as sovereign, otherwise I will crush you or push others to do so.”

Who benefits then from the link between Russia and celestial Armenia? All pro-Russian and all pro-celestial Armenian forces in Armenia and outside the country. In Armenia, besides Etchmiadzin, the ARF, the Armenian Communist Party, the Republican Party of Serzh Sargsyan, the Armenian National Congress (ex-ANM) of Levon Ter-Petrosyan, former president Robert Kocharyan and some factions of the Armenians of Artsakh, who, by Russophilia and religious beliefs, cannot integrate into the real world, dangerous and decadent because of man at fault for everything and responsible for nothing. Because the driving force of the history of celestial Armenia is not man but providence. This, just as unequivocally, holds true of the pro-celestial Armenian forces, the Ramgavars, the SDHP and the AGBU outside of the Republic of Armenia.

But what, then, sustains celestial Armenia? Its proponents cultivate an imagined purity—a world yet to be created—fueled by intransigence, religious and ideological dogmas, and conspiracy theories centered on Armenians themselves. They traffic in fear and a celestial morality that, to those who uphold universal ethics, often appears deeply immoral. They rely on falsehoods and ignorance, the solitude of the Armenian condition, the irresponsibility of celestial elites, and a worldview steeped in submission and Manichaean absolutes. Memory is weaponized, insecurity is enshrined, and unattainable territorial claims are elevated above human rights—because once again, it is man who is blamed.

Russia, having appropriated the ready-made narrative of celestial Armenia, manipulates it at will, pressing one emotional button after another to advance its own agenda. Sometimes it’s fear, other times false promises, forced submission, or the seductive invocation of “Western Armenia”—a cornerstone of the celestial Armenia mythos.

And what of the diaspora in all this? The devotees of celestial Armenia place the Armenian state and the diaspora on the same level, as if the two spheres of Armenian identity were inseparable, like the small and great Masis that form the sacred Mount Ararat. This unity isn’t just religious, it is also ideological. Yet, no other nation conflates its diaspora and state in this way—not Israel, not Ireland, not Greece, not Lebanon. Only the forces of celestial Armenia sculpt this balance between the motherland and the diaspora, risking the creation of a rootless identity and turning Armenia itself into a patchwork structure, precariously suspended above a void. But truthfully, this contradiction doesn’t trouble them because for these servants of the ideal, both Armenians and Armenia ultimately belong not to the real world but to the Kingdom of Heaven, an eternal utopia, forever just out of reach…

Is celestial Armenia opposed to the sovereign Armenian state? Unquestionably yes—because celestial Armenia promotes a worldview rooted in exile and victimhood, whereas a sovereign Armenian state must be grounded in citizenship and accountability. In celestial Armenia, no one bears personal responsibility; the only guiding principles are canon law or party regulations, referred to as ganonakir, and little else. In the sovereign state, individuals are held accountable under civil law. In celestial Armenia, divine or ideological law takes precedence over human law; canon law outranks positive law. In contrast, the sovereign Armenian state upholds the rule of human law above all else. Within celestial Armenia’s moral universe, a person becomes truly visible, as a transgressor, only upon death or when violating its sacred codes. At that point, the guardians of its ideology, whether church or party officials, have only one recourse: excommunication, from both the institution and celestial Armenia itself.

Celestial Armenia is a memory built on trauma, a form of indoctrination that refuses to name itself. It is a slow, quiet demise, like a candle burning down in general indifference. It demands absolute duty without offering any rights. It is a prison without bars, a limitless faith disconnected from reality. Celestial Armenia speaks in vague, empty slogans—like those invoked by Monsignor Bagrat and his supporters (the ARF, the Republican Party, etc.) in 2024: “Armenian, Armenia, Homeland and God.” But who is the “Armenian”? The one from Yerevan or from Los Angeles? A citizen or an exile? Settled or displaced? Republican or Imperialist? And what is “Armenia”? Is it the Republic of Armenia alone, or Armenia plus Artsakh, Javakhk, Nakhichevan, Western Armenia, and every diasporic home? What is the “Homeland”? Where does it begin and where does it end? And as for “God”—there’s no point even starting that debate. Like the voices of celestial Armenia’s most zealous and irresponsible defenders, His words remain impenetrable.

It is long past time to break with celestial Armenia, a construct that has become a form of servitude, a constant threat, a political infirmity, a pathology. It is a cult of fear disguised as fidelity, a rigid, rootless stance that undermines sovereignty at every turn. In truth, celestial Armenia is nothing more than the Armenian façade of Russian imperialism, weaponized against the very idea of an independent Armenian state.

Comment

Comments 13

  1. Daniel says:
    3 weeks ago

    Celestial Armenia is only weaponized to the degree that we allow it to be. But to even suggest that the alternative to that is what Nikol is doing, is yet another sign of pathological unrealism amongst Armenians. Armenia was a functioning state before Nikol came to power, it was pragmatic in its ambitions and never pursued any celestial Armenian dreams. The Armenian church is the only functioning Armenian institution, perhaps this is too much to grasp for Armenians who have no idea whatsoever what Armenia is, living as they do in foreign countries and thus viewing the Armenian state through the lens of French, American state interests etc. nikol’s real Armenia is not only the end of celestial, historical Armenia whatever the term might be, but it is the actual, tangible destruction of Armenia as a state, society, and nation.

    Reply
  2. Gagik says:
    3 weeks ago

    Armenia was not a functioning state before Nikol. It was a sort of external Russian Gubernia, had no foreign relations, inrelligence or security agencies, most of military functions were delegated to Russians, like anti-aircraft defense, which naturally stopped working whenever Russians didn’t want to. Many other local functions were governed by a centralized vertical corruption encouraged by Moscow, because that made the president of Armenia illegitimate and vulnerable.

    Reply
  3. Minassian says:
    3 weeks ago

    Dear Daniel
    Thank you for your message, but I think you do not understand my article. It’s maybe my fault.
    You talk about destruction ? Not necessary
    You talk about Armenian church as institution, do you real know the history of Etchmiadzin ?
    What is your argumentation against my proposition ? I don’t know…
    You talk about fonctional state in Armenia, are you serious ? Since 1991 there is no Armenian state, there is only an Armenian regime… thank you so much. Best regards G

    Reply
  4. Andy says:
    3 weeks ago

    Dear Daniel, with all respect, I don’t agree with many things Mr. Minassian says here, but to say that “Armenia was a functioning state before Nikol came to power” and “The Armenian church is the only functioning Armenian institution” means complete unawareness of what has been happening in Armenia since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    Reply
  5. Daniel says:
    3 weeks ago

    First of all thank you for all the responses. I am glad that we can discuss things, and disagree on many points. Armenia was a state, yes heavily dependent on Russia but to say it wasn’t a functioning state is absurd that’s just Nikol’s narrative, he failed at everything and now he looks for scapegoats. Armenia won a war in the 1990’s, true we didn’t capitalize on the victory but nevertheless the one who utterly blundered its rewards was Nikol. As for the Armenian Church, it does many works of charity most of which is alas unknown, and people especially Armenians dwelling in the west have a rather skewed view of the Church, and this can only be put down to their ideological biases. Once again, I don’t think Armenia was a perfect state, I was born and lived my entire life in Armenia, I have seen first hand all the shortcomings everyone listed here, but whatever it was it was a state that had a say with regards Artsakh issue, and it was far more secure than the current Armenia which Nikol is claiming to build. Armenia needs changes but not a top-down destruction of its identity, cohesiveness and its social fabric, which the current regime is undertaking.

    Dear Prof. Minassian I find your pieces rather interesting and always discussion worthy.

    I can’t be more detailed than this, as I don’t intend to write an article.

    Reply
  6. Minassian says:
    3 weeks ago

    Dear Daniel,
    I’m not going to insist on our disagreement and especially not start a dialogue here. But I am willing to continue this exchange in other ways. Since 1991, Armenia has not been a sovereign state, but a regime at Russia’s service. It is not a sovereign state with the standards of a regal power. We could discuss this for hours, but I can assure you that if Armenia had been a sovereign state as we understand it, there would have been a central, responsible, autonomous, efficient and hierarchical administration. But the current administration was an extension of the Russian one. If you believe that Armenia was a sovereign state, I’m sorry, but I think you’re trapped by your own experience. If Armenia had been a sovereign state, the military victory of 1994 would have been handled differently from the way it was handled by Moscow. It would, for example, have been accompanied by a political victory (recognition of the Republic of Artsakh). But this was not the case. Because of the regimes in power, from Levon to Serge included. The regime that emerged from the Velvet Revolution is also responsible, but it’s too easy to blame everything on one man and his camp. Too easy, ethically irresponsible and politically wrong. As for what you say about the Church, I’m sorry but we’re not talking about the same thing. I’m not disputing the Christian dogma of the Church, I just think that the Creed of Ephesus is a political error incompatible with the notion of a sovereign state. Nuance.

    Reply
  7. Max Gouchian says:
    3 weeks ago

    Dear professor, Minassian. It pains me to read such an article with so many mistakes. I thank you for the time you took to write it and I pray you will reflect on these mistakes and make amendments to the article since it fundamentally hurts your argument.

    1.⁠ ⁠Firstly, Armenians are not Monophysites. I understand that perhaps this is a secular article and misses this very crucial point but allow me to correct this as it hurts the centuries old history of our beloved Church. A simple Google search would have shown you the Armenian Apolstolic Church holds a Miaphysite position. Your statement “the Armenian Church, which became Monophysite” is false. In fact, the Holy Church Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin has stated and written that Monophysitism as taught by Eutyches is a heresy. Please do not label a heretical label on our Church, especially one it does not accept itself. The Orthodox Armenian Church holds that Christ is 100% human and 100% God together in a nature that we as humans cannot fully understand – a compound nature or Miaphysitism.

    Please amend this part of your article. Our church cannot be identified with a heresy it itself condemns.

    2.⁠ ⁠You mentioned “a Kingdom of Heaven, that cannot be achieved in this world but accessible only after the death of those who believe in it”. My dear brother, I take issue here with this statement as well. While not entirely false you miss a crucial Christian mystery, the mystery of repentance. “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” — Matthew 3:2

    Repent (Metanoia or ապաշխարել) for the kingdom of God is at hand. God in Christ is establishing his kingdom on Earth. It’s both a spiritual kingdom—transforming hearts and lives—and a future promise of God’s perfect rule.

    “And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” Philippians 4:7

    “The thief does not come, except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, that they may have it more abundantly.” John 10:10

    “You made known to me the ways of life; You will fill me with gladness in your presence; At your right hand are pleasures forevermore.” Psalm 16:11

    Your previous assertion, “human responsibility is rendered meaningless—because man has entrusted his destiny entirely to divine providence.” seems to only further the issue. While it is true Christians place all hope in the divine we are not void of responsibility. Quite the contrary, the responsibility to “repent”, have a change of heart, ապաշխարել is only increased more and more so each passing hour with the endless journey of sanctification.

    3.⁠ ⁠Your reference to Russia “since its 18th-century presence in the Caucasus, has understood that the most effective way to assert its imperial dominance is to exploit the servants of this celestial Armenia”

    Really? When was this exactly? When the Soviet Regime killed over 1000 Armenian priests and monks? Seems kind of counter-productive don’t you think?

    Certainly I agree that a power like Russia only attempts to control Armenian internal and external affairs but the previous point of “celestial Armenia”, which again you did not correctly understand, simply doesn’t work.

    4.⁠ ⁠The so called otherwordliness of the Armenian Church is in fact very much actual. Let us not forget the words of Catholikos George V 1918

    “If the Armenian people cannot stop the advance of the enemy, if they are unable to save our sanctuaries, then I myself will take a sword and fall in the courtyard of the Mother Cathedral, but I will not leave the Holy See, which was left as a deposit by our grandpas ”

    5.⁠ ⁠Finally professor “Celestial Armenia is a memory built on trauma”. Incorrect. Celestial Armenia was, is, and will be a reality of martyrdom. We, as Christians, as Armenian Christians, are called to Martyrdom not for being Armenian but for being Christians. In the words of William Saroyan:

    “I should like to see any power of the world destroy this race, this small tribe of unimportant people, whose wars have all been fought and lost, whose structures have crumbled, literature is unread, music is unheard, and prayers are no more answered. Go ahead, destroy Armenia. See if you can do it. Send them from their homes into the desert. Let them have neither bread nor water. Burn their homes and churches. Then see if they will not laugh, sing, and pray again. For when two of them meet anywhere in the world, see if they will not create a New Armenia.”

    So you see my dear friend it is not victimization or trauma but a higher ideal we should all be reaching for. God bless you sir.

    Reply
  8. Max Gouchian says:
    3 weeks ago

    Armenians are not Monophysites. I understand that perhaps this is a secular article and misses this very crucial point but allow me to correct this as it hurts the centuries old history of our beloved Church. A simple Google search would have shown you the Armenian Apolstolic Church holds a Miaphysite position. Your statement “the Armenian Church, which became Monophysite” is false. In fact, the Holy Church Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin has stated and written that Monophysitism as taught by Eutyches is a heresy. Please do not label a heretical label on our Church, especially one it does not accept itself. The Orthodox Armenian Church holds that Christ is 100% human and 100% God together in a nature that we as humans cannot fully understand – a compound nature or Miaphysitism.

    Please amend this part of your article. Our church cannot be identified with a heresy it itself condemns.

    Reply
  9. Minassian says:
    2 weeks ago

    Dear Max
    Thank you for your message. But I think your message is either unkind or politically biased. I spoke of the Armenian Monophysite Church to speak of the early days. Don’t put words in my mouth. You only have a religious interpretation of things and if I have offended you – given the arrogance with which you address me – it is because I have hit the nail on the head.
    I only have a political and sociological reading. Don’t confuse them.
    Regarding Russia, I think there is also a mistake. I believe, and I insist on this point, that Russia perfectly understood how the Armenians, drawn to the cult of heavenly Armenia, functioned.
    In short, I will stop there, before taking your keyboard, reread my words carefully and do not try to spread another narrative based on your personal ideas which I respect as much as you respect those of others.
    I invite you to go to Google to list what Russia has committed as treason, cowardice, etc. against the Armenians. It’s crazy how you raise issues you think you know while you suppress those that bother you. I’ll stop there, may God bless you.

    Reply
  10. Mike Gansazian says:
    2 weeks ago

    The author totally misunderstands the Diaspora and seems to think it’s a bunch of fools with their heads in the clouds, which it isn’t.

    It also appears that the author believes Armenia can never be more than what it is.

    That is, Armenian must lower its aspirations and accept the fact that Armenia is really not much of anything.

    Like a kid who grows up in a poor neighborhood. Don’t go to college. Just be a trash collector for the city.

    But what about Turkey and Azerbaijan?

    Oh, they’re must different than Armenia.

    Those are robust, strong, smart countries. THEY can aspire to greatness, you see.

    We Armenians make terrible mistakes. They don’t. They are internally united and all on the same page.

    No, Armenia. Just settle for what you are, like Pashinyan says, and be happy you’re even alive.

    The last time Armenians complained about the way they were treated, the Turks got angry in 1915 (and the 1890s, 1909, and 2020), and we all know what happened THEN, don’t we?

    Don’t get Turkey (or Azerbaijan) unhappy ever again. Or you will pay the price.

    Or so that way of thinking goes.

    Reply
  11. Daniel says:
    2 weeks ago

    Great to see that the article has incited so much discussion- whether we agree or disagree with its content debates are important to arrive at reasonable solutions. Upon a further reading, I personally think Prof. Minassian’s argument is weak in one rather conspicuous way: it tries to replace one utopia with another. Celestial Armenia is utopian indeed, but it is our utopia, its content is Armenian (I don’t have to second guess what Armenian means, I guess that’s because I grew up in my homeland). While the utopia that Nikol offers, and prof. Minassian tacitly agrees with is no longer Armenian. The second utopia consists of making vehement and empty claims about near absolute independence or sovereignty as if a country with the size and resources of Armenia can ever achieve that. Armenia as a state , and even as a collection of regimes (what do you expect of a country that became independent not even half a century ago?) before Nikol knew its geopolitical limitations. True it heavily relied on Russia, and that shouldn’t have been thus, but it also embarked on no quixotic adventures of achieving so-called sovereignty at the expense of total surrender and humiliation of its identity and its own people’s dignity. I also suggest Prof. Minassian look into Vahan Teryan’s Hogevor Hayastan article and Charent’s Yerkir Nairi, where the latter beautifully explains how political mythology as such is disruptive. Your sovereign, independent and decoupled from Russia Armenia is as much of a political mythology as what you call celestial Armenia.

    Seeing that you have ignored my message I had to, perforce, express my views here. However, I am really happy that this piece sparked such a lively discussion, it definitely speaks highly of its author.

    Reply
  12. Minassian says:
    1 week ago

    Hello, your reaction proves that my argument is anything but weak. You have no arguments, and you should know that the books you cite are not unknown to me. Quite the opposite. But I don’t know if you’ve read what I’ve read to arrive at this demonstration. Between the abusive criticisms from both camps, it is often said that one has fulfilled one’s contract. If you want to remain in heavenly Armenia, that’s up to you, but leave the Armenians the freedom to think and choose their lives. Best, Gaïdz

    Reply
  13. Minassian says:
    1 week ago

    Dear Mike, Did you really understand what I wrote? Allow me to doubt it….

    Reply

Leave A Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

EVN Security Report

Subversion and Electoral Interference: Russia and Armenia’s 2026 Elections

Nerses Kopalyan
May 2, 2025

Drawing from Moldova’s recent experience, Armenia must brace for a coordinated and covert Kremlin strategy aimed at electoral interference and destabilizing its democracy ahead of the 2026 parliamentary elections. Nerses Kopalyan explains Russia’s evolving hybrid warfare tactics and “traceless manipulation” operations.

Read more

Also see

Sovereignty, Political Identity, Equidistance

Sovereignty, Political Identity, Equidistance

Zohrab Mnatsakanyan
Mar 6, 2025

In this comprehensive article, Zohrab Mnatsakanyan explores the fundamental principles of nation-state building and Armenia’s place in the complex global order. It aims to contribute to the ongoing national debate by defining the boundaries of a shared consensus while acknowledging diverse approaches to achieving national goals.

Read more
Is Armenia a Nation-State?

Is Armenia a Nation-State?

Tigran Yegavian
Apr 9, 2024

Is Armenia a nation-state? While the answer may seem obvious at first glance, upon closer examination, the question's significance becomes apparent, writes Tigran Yegavian.

Read more
Between State and Fatherland: A Tale of Two Mountains

Between State and Fatherland: A Tale of Two Mountains

Daniel Tahmazyan
Feb 19, 2024

Mount Ararat doesn't stand as an obstacle to building a functional state, and suddenly loving Mount Aragats will not help us achieve our goals. Before we jettison our national symbols en masse, we need concrete plans and state-driven programs to improve the lives of an already beleaguered nation, writes Daniel Tahmazyan.

Read more
From Constructivist to Liberal Realism: From Nation to State

From Constructivist to Liberal Realism: From Nation to State

Gaïdz Minassian
Oct 2, 2023

The restoration of Armenian sovereignty in 1991 prompts us to contemplate the future of Armenia and its position in the international order, writes Gaidz Minassian.This is all the more pressing when the Armenian state has never been thoroughly examined through the lens of international relations theories.

Read more
Building Fortress Armenia

Building Fortress Armenia

Raffi Kassarjian
Sep 25, 2023

Raffi Kassarjian introduces the concept of a national, collective effort to safeguard the independence, democratic principles and complete territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia where every square cm is protected, with no compromises or territorial concessions of any kind to any external threats or demands.

Read more
The Supremacy of State Interests

The Supremacy of State Interests

Vahan Zanoyan
Jun 27, 2022

Almost all systemic and structural political and military weaknesses of Armenia share a fundamental root cause: the chronic absence of a culture and tradition of Statehood, both in the mindset of the political leadership and the general public.

Read more
Comment

Comments 13

  1. Daniel says:
    3 weeks ago

    Celestial Armenia is only weaponized to the degree that we allow it to be. But to even suggest that the alternative to that is what Nikol is doing, is yet another sign of pathological unrealism amongst Armenians. Armenia was a functioning state before Nikol came to power, it was pragmatic in its ambitions and never pursued any celestial Armenian dreams. The Armenian church is the only functioning Armenian institution, perhaps this is too much to grasp for Armenians who have no idea whatsoever what Armenia is, living as they do in foreign countries and thus viewing the Armenian state through the lens of French, American state interests etc. nikol’s real Armenia is not only the end of celestial, historical Armenia whatever the term might be, but it is the actual, tangible destruction of Armenia as a state, society, and nation.

    Reply
  2. Gagik says:
    3 weeks ago

    Armenia was not a functioning state before Nikol. It was a sort of external Russian Gubernia, had no foreign relations, inrelligence or security agencies, most of military functions were delegated to Russians, like anti-aircraft defense, which naturally stopped working whenever Russians didn’t want to. Many other local functions were governed by a centralized vertical corruption encouraged by Moscow, because that made the president of Armenia illegitimate and vulnerable.

    Reply
  3. Minassian says:
    3 weeks ago

    Dear Daniel
    Thank you for your message, but I think you do not understand my article. It’s maybe my fault.
    You talk about destruction ? Not necessary
    You talk about Armenian church as institution, do you real know the history of Etchmiadzin ?
    What is your argumentation against my proposition ? I don’t know…
    You talk about fonctional state in Armenia, are you serious ? Since 1991 there is no Armenian state, there is only an Armenian regime… thank you so much. Best regards G

    Reply
  4. Andy says:
    3 weeks ago

    Dear Daniel, with all respect, I don’t agree with many things Mr. Minassian says here, but to say that “Armenia was a functioning state before Nikol came to power” and “The Armenian church is the only functioning Armenian institution” means complete unawareness of what has been happening in Armenia since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

    Reply
  5. Daniel says:
    3 weeks ago

    First of all thank you for all the responses. I am glad that we can discuss things, and disagree on many points. Armenia was a state, yes heavily dependent on Russia but to say it wasn’t a functioning state is absurd that’s just Nikol’s narrative, he failed at everything and now he looks for scapegoats. Armenia won a war in the 1990’s, true we didn’t capitalize on the victory but nevertheless the one who utterly blundered its rewards was Nikol. As for the Armenian Church, it does many works of charity most of which is alas unknown, and people especially Armenians dwelling in the west have a rather skewed view of the Church, and this can only be put down to their ideological biases. Once again, I don’t think Armenia was a perfect state, I was born and lived my entire life in Armenia, I have seen first hand all the shortcomings everyone listed here, but whatever it was it was a state that had a say with regards Artsakh issue, and it was far more secure than the current Armenia which Nikol is claiming to build. Armenia needs changes but not a top-down destruction of its identity, cohesiveness and its social fabric, which the current regime is undertaking.

    Dear Prof. Minassian I find your pieces rather interesting and always discussion worthy.

    I can’t be more detailed than this, as I don’t intend to write an article.

    Reply
  6. Minassian says:
    3 weeks ago

    Dear Daniel,
    I’m not going to insist on our disagreement and especially not start a dialogue here. But I am willing to continue this exchange in other ways. Since 1991, Armenia has not been a sovereign state, but a regime at Russia’s service. It is not a sovereign state with the standards of a regal power. We could discuss this for hours, but I can assure you that if Armenia had been a sovereign state as we understand it, there would have been a central, responsible, autonomous, efficient and hierarchical administration. But the current administration was an extension of the Russian one. If you believe that Armenia was a sovereign state, I’m sorry, but I think you’re trapped by your own experience. If Armenia had been a sovereign state, the military victory of 1994 would have been handled differently from the way it was handled by Moscow. It would, for example, have been accompanied by a political victory (recognition of the Republic of Artsakh). But this was not the case. Because of the regimes in power, from Levon to Serge included. The regime that emerged from the Velvet Revolution is also responsible, but it’s too easy to blame everything on one man and his camp. Too easy, ethically irresponsible and politically wrong. As for what you say about the Church, I’m sorry but we’re not talking about the same thing. I’m not disputing the Christian dogma of the Church, I just think that the Creed of Ephesus is a political error incompatible with the notion of a sovereign state. Nuance.

    Reply
  7. Max Gouchian says:
    3 weeks ago

    Dear professor, Minassian. It pains me to read such an article with so many mistakes. I thank you for the time you took to write it and I pray you will reflect on these mistakes and make amendments to the article since it fundamentally hurts your argument.

    1.⁠ ⁠Firstly, Armenians are not Monophysites. I understand that perhaps this is a secular article and misses this very crucial point but allow me to correct this as it hurts the centuries old history of our beloved Church. A simple Google search would have shown you the Armenian Apolstolic Church holds a Miaphysite position. Your statement “the Armenian Church, which became Monophysite” is false. In fact, the Holy Church Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin has stated and written that Monophysitism as taught by Eutyches is a heresy. Please do not label a heretical label on our Church, especially one it does not accept itself. The Orthodox Armenian Church holds that Christ is 100% human and 100% God together in a nature that we as humans cannot fully understand – a compound nature or Miaphysitism.

    Please amend this part of your article. Our church cannot be identified with a heresy it itself condemns.

    2.⁠ ⁠You mentioned “a Kingdom of Heaven, that cannot be achieved in this world but accessible only after the death of those who believe in it”. My dear brother, I take issue here with this statement as well. While not entirely false you miss a crucial Christian mystery, the mystery of repentance. “Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” — Matthew 3:2

    Repent (Metanoia or ապաշխարել) for the kingdom of God is at hand. God in Christ is establishing his kingdom on Earth. It’s both a spiritual kingdom—transforming hearts and lives—and a future promise of God’s perfect rule.

    “And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” Philippians 4:7

    “The thief does not come, except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, that they may have it more abundantly.” John 10:10

    “You made known to me the ways of life; You will fill me with gladness in your presence; At your right hand are pleasures forevermore.” Psalm 16:11

    Your previous assertion, “human responsibility is rendered meaningless—because man has entrusted his destiny entirely to divine providence.” seems to only further the issue. While it is true Christians place all hope in the divine we are not void of responsibility. Quite the contrary, the responsibility to “repent”, have a change of heart, ապաշխարել is only increased more and more so each passing hour with the endless journey of sanctification.

    3.⁠ ⁠Your reference to Russia “since its 18th-century presence in the Caucasus, has understood that the most effective way to assert its imperial dominance is to exploit the servants of this celestial Armenia”

    Really? When was this exactly? When the Soviet Regime killed over 1000 Armenian priests and monks? Seems kind of counter-productive don’t you think?

    Certainly I agree that a power like Russia only attempts to control Armenian internal and external affairs but the previous point of “celestial Armenia”, which again you did not correctly understand, simply doesn’t work.

    4.⁠ ⁠The so called otherwordliness of the Armenian Church is in fact very much actual. Let us not forget the words of Catholikos George V 1918

    “If the Armenian people cannot stop the advance of the enemy, if they are unable to save our sanctuaries, then I myself will take a sword and fall in the courtyard of the Mother Cathedral, but I will not leave the Holy See, which was left as a deposit by our grandpas ”

    5.⁠ ⁠Finally professor “Celestial Armenia is a memory built on trauma”. Incorrect. Celestial Armenia was, is, and will be a reality of martyrdom. We, as Christians, as Armenian Christians, are called to Martyrdom not for being Armenian but for being Christians. In the words of William Saroyan:

    “I should like to see any power of the world destroy this race, this small tribe of unimportant people, whose wars have all been fought and lost, whose structures have crumbled, literature is unread, music is unheard, and prayers are no more answered. Go ahead, destroy Armenia. See if you can do it. Send them from their homes into the desert. Let them have neither bread nor water. Burn their homes and churches. Then see if they will not laugh, sing, and pray again. For when two of them meet anywhere in the world, see if they will not create a New Armenia.”

    So you see my dear friend it is not victimization or trauma but a higher ideal we should all be reaching for. God bless you sir.

    Reply
  8. Max Gouchian says:
    3 weeks ago

    Armenians are not Monophysites. I understand that perhaps this is a secular article and misses this very crucial point but allow me to correct this as it hurts the centuries old history of our beloved Church. A simple Google search would have shown you the Armenian Apolstolic Church holds a Miaphysite position. Your statement “the Armenian Church, which became Monophysite” is false. In fact, the Holy Church Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin has stated and written that Monophysitism as taught by Eutyches is a heresy. Please do not label a heretical label on our Church, especially one it does not accept itself. The Orthodox Armenian Church holds that Christ is 100% human and 100% God together in a nature that we as humans cannot fully understand – a compound nature or Miaphysitism.

    Please amend this part of your article. Our church cannot be identified with a heresy it itself condemns.

    Reply
  9. Minassian says:
    2 weeks ago

    Dear Max
    Thank you for your message. But I think your message is either unkind or politically biased. I spoke of the Armenian Monophysite Church to speak of the early days. Don’t put words in my mouth. You only have a religious interpretation of things and if I have offended you – given the arrogance with which you address me – it is because I have hit the nail on the head.
    I only have a political and sociological reading. Don’t confuse them.
    Regarding Russia, I think there is also a mistake. I believe, and I insist on this point, that Russia perfectly understood how the Armenians, drawn to the cult of heavenly Armenia, functioned.
    In short, I will stop there, before taking your keyboard, reread my words carefully and do not try to spread another narrative based on your personal ideas which I respect as much as you respect those of others.
    I invite you to go to Google to list what Russia has committed as treason, cowardice, etc. against the Armenians. It’s crazy how you raise issues you think you know while you suppress those that bother you. I’ll stop there, may God bless you.

    Reply
  10. Mike Gansazian says:
    2 weeks ago

    The author totally misunderstands the Diaspora and seems to think it’s a bunch of fools with their heads in the clouds, which it isn’t.

    It also appears that the author believes Armenia can never be more than what it is.

    That is, Armenian must lower its aspirations and accept the fact that Armenia is really not much of anything.

    Like a kid who grows up in a poor neighborhood. Don’t go to college. Just be a trash collector for the city.

    But what about Turkey and Azerbaijan?

    Oh, they’re must different than Armenia.

    Those are robust, strong, smart countries. THEY can aspire to greatness, you see.

    We Armenians make terrible mistakes. They don’t. They are internally united and all on the same page.

    No, Armenia. Just settle for what you are, like Pashinyan says, and be happy you’re even alive.

    The last time Armenians complained about the way they were treated, the Turks got angry in 1915 (and the 1890s, 1909, and 2020), and we all know what happened THEN, don’t we?

    Don’t get Turkey (or Azerbaijan) unhappy ever again. Or you will pay the price.

    Or so that way of thinking goes.

    Reply
  11. Daniel says:
    2 weeks ago

    Great to see that the article has incited so much discussion- whether we agree or disagree with its content debates are important to arrive at reasonable solutions. Upon a further reading, I personally think Prof. Minassian’s argument is weak in one rather conspicuous way: it tries to replace one utopia with another. Celestial Armenia is utopian indeed, but it is our utopia, its content is Armenian (I don’t have to second guess what Armenian means, I guess that’s because I grew up in my homeland). While the utopia that Nikol offers, and prof. Minassian tacitly agrees with is no longer Armenian. The second utopia consists of making vehement and empty claims about near absolute independence or sovereignty as if a country with the size and resources of Armenia can ever achieve that. Armenia as a state , and even as a collection of regimes (what do you expect of a country that became independent not even half a century ago?) before Nikol knew its geopolitical limitations. True it heavily relied on Russia, and that shouldn’t have been thus, but it also embarked on no quixotic adventures of achieving so-called sovereignty at the expense of total surrender and humiliation of its identity and its own people’s dignity. I also suggest Prof. Minassian look into Vahan Teryan’s Hogevor Hayastan article and Charent’s Yerkir Nairi, where the latter beautifully explains how political mythology as such is disruptive. Your sovereign, independent and decoupled from Russia Armenia is as much of a political mythology as what you call celestial Armenia.

    Seeing that you have ignored my message I had to, perforce, express my views here. However, I am really happy that this piece sparked such a lively discussion, it definitely speaks highly of its author.

    Reply
  12. Minassian says:
    1 week ago

    Hello, your reaction proves that my argument is anything but weak. You have no arguments, and you should know that the books you cite are not unknown to me. Quite the opposite. But I don’t know if you’ve read what I’ve read to arrive at this demonstration. Between the abusive criticisms from both camps, it is often said that one has fulfilled one’s contract. If you want to remain in heavenly Armenia, that’s up to you, but leave the Armenians the freedom to think and choose their lives. Best, Gaïdz

    Reply
  13. Minassian says:
    1 week ago

    Dear Mike, Did you really understand what I wrote? Allow me to doubt it….

    Reply

Leave A Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

EVN Report’s mission is to empower Armenia, inspire the diaspora and inform the world through sound, credible and fact-based reporting and commentary. Our goal is to increase public trust in the media. EVN Report is the media arm of EVN News Foundation registered in the Republic of Armenia in 2017.

Subscribe

Quick Links

  • Politics
  • Opinion
  • Spotlight Artsakh
  • Raw & Unfiltered
  • Arts & Culture
  • Elections
  • Creative Tech
  • Law & Society
  • Economy
  • Elections
  • Understanding the Region
  • Readers’ Forum
  • Podcast
  • Editorial Policy & Guidelines

Follow Us On





@ 2024 EVN Report. All Rights Reserved

    Subscribe

      Բաժանորդագրվել

      Sections

      • Home
      • Magazine
      • SALT
      • Podcast
      • News Watch
        • Covid-19
      • EVN Security Report
      • Politics
      • Opinion
      • Columns
        • Unleashed
        • Tech Matters
        • Outside In
        • Beyond Borders
        • Art Speak
      • Spotlight Artsakh
      • Raw & Unfiltered
      • Arts & Culture
      • Et Cetera
        • ARTINERARY
      • Reviews by EVN Report
      • Creative Tech
      • Law & Society
      • Economy
      • Readers’ Forum
        • Protecting Infants With Disabilities
        • Volunteerism
      • Article Submissions
      • About Us
      • Eng
      • Հայ
      • Contact Us

      Subscribe to our Newsletter

      Donate

      SUPPORT INDEPENDANT JOURNALISM