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.
A new security environment was created after the 2020 Artsakh War, requiring a revision of Armenia’s National Security Strategy that was adopted before Azerbaijan launched the war in Nagorno-Karabakh. Hovsep Kanadyan explains.
Entering the post-Western world, the strategic debate is shifting from a world of alliances toward a world of partnerships. How will Armenia seize this shift of geopolitical tectonic plates?
Instead of making Yerevan step back every time there is a deadlock in the negotiation process, the mediators should instead develop the tools to pressure Baku. If they do not, another war in the South Caucasus is likely.
For over 30 years, there has been a constant refrain on the righteousness of Armenia’s national aims and precious little about the means towards those ends, and the feasibility of those chosen goals.
If those genuine activists who have genuine grievances want this government gone, then they must also get rid of the Kocharyans and Sargsyans from their ranks. Until this happens, the transition to mainstream legitimacy will be a Sisyphean endeavor.
The general state of flux and lack of clarity on Artsakh and the negotiation process has produced a great deal of uncertainty, precipitating important questions about nationhood, state-building, and how to move forward.
Are we headed toward a better, or a more worrying future? Is the pendulum swinging toward more uncertainty or toward a lull? Two fundamental questions stand out: the survival of Artsakh and the independence of Armenia.
In the wake of lingering concern over the events unfolding in Ukraine following Russia’s February 24 invasion and its defeat in Artsakh in 2020, how can Armenia pull itself out of this chain of elevated conflicts?
The relationship between Armenians and “the political” (Le politique) embodies a dialectic of the village and of the Polity; more precisely, the unavoidable but asphyxiating spirit of the village pitted against the indispensable yet evanescent Polity.