In 2026, we will decide: Will the Armenian ethnic identity survive, or will the state collapse?
30.12
2025
We have never hesitated to turn critical thinking into a working approach that allows us to correctly align our goals.
It is unnecessary to recall the extremely serious challenges we face — as a morally exhausted, divided society that has lost its national identity, and as a state that has lost its military-strategic and geopolitical weight. Particularly in the post-war period, the Armenian people and Armenia have rightfully not refrained from labeling the current authorities’ adopted anti-national, adventurous, anti-state political course and methods, and their systematic and hostile propaganda aimed at sowing and spreading internal hatred, with objective and negative characteristics. There is no need for additional humiliating labels. Let us simply note the serious political and security challenges left to us as a legacy, which we are obliged to overcome in the near future.
From a strategic perspective, after the loss of Artsakh, the Republic of Armenia has been deprived of strategic depth. Armenia’s geographical territory — from the northeast and southeast — is under constant threat of occupation, and the country’s largest water basin lies in a risk zone. This means that Armenia lacks security viability, and the worst part is that the current authorities have no foundational approach, principle, or vision to restore the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and ensure its security.
Nevertheless, the time for political diagnoses, analyses, and various assessments has passed. The issue now is to formulate the national goal of preventing Armenia’s neo-colonization in a clear and rational way and make it accessible to a wide public. Achieving this requires a precise political toolkit, appropriate technologies, skills to work in harmony with like-minded partners, and most importantly, young patriots with a national vision, and elder colleagues who possess rational experience and political courage to channel the ideological “madness” of the youth into productive action.
Over the past five years, Genesis Armenia has operated exactly according to this logic and continues to pursue its defined mission, clearly outlined in its program and charter, with full responsibility. We are also a scientific-analytical think tank, which, according to average Armenian expectations, would be expected to publish several articles and books annually, organize seminars, and in short, fulfill all the client’s wishes. We have not been guided by this logic, and I believe this is one of the secrets of our success, although I admit that we have never lacked in-depth analyses, research, seminars, statements, training courses, and publications — we have dozens of them.
The secret of our national, Armenia-centered, professional, independent, precise, and courageous activity — of our sharp and flawless speech, national-state thinking — lies in making sovereign decisions, implementing them, and being independent of anyone or any force. The meaning of Genesis Armenia’s mission should be sought precisely here, and the measure of its commitment and responsibility to distinguish itself from similar institutions should be understood in this very context.
Before our eyes, a greatest value was destroyed — Artsakh — which, beyond territory, historical-political memory, and cultural monuments, is an essence; it has been and will continue to remain one of the main components of national identity, at least for my generation. We all know the reasons for our defeat in the war. We also know the geopolitical consensus that Armenia should not have strategic ambitions in this region, and in this context, the international silence or acquiescence to the longevity of the current authorities is understandable, regardless of the fact that over the past five years Armenia has become a corrupt and authoritarian country by all political-science standards.
Nevertheless, we will continue our work with strength of spirit, sober thought, and tireless dedication. We were among the first who, after the depopulation of Artsakh, began to develop — and still continue to refine — a strategy and roadmap for the collective return to Artsakh, based on international experience, solid knowledge, and flexible thinking, without at all claiming the title of having the final word of truth. On the contrary, together with all healthy national forces in Armenia and the Diaspora, traditional parties, the offices of the Armenian Cause, and the relevant experienced and professional commission formed by the decision of the Artsakh government, we continue intensive discussions and meetings to make that strategically — or rather conceptually — important dossier unassailable, so that, under favorable geopolitical conditions, it can undoubtedly be taken out of the drawers and put into practice.
However, before making toasts about entering a higher weight category in the region, it is an imperative necessity to purposefully consolidate Armenian thought, will, potential, and organizational and network capacities; to emphasize the value foundations of a collective goal; and to show readiness to assume responsibility. Only in this way will it be possible to rid ourselves of the stigma of shame; only thus will we be able to see our compatriots who are imprisoned in Yerevan and Baku free — those whom, through the coordinated work of a hostile tandem and their immoral obsession with keeping one another in power, they try to humiliate: our military-political and national-church figures who have sacrificed their lives for Armenian identity and continuity — from Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan to Davit Ishkhanyan and Ruben Vardanyan, from Archbishop Mikayel Ajapahyan to Levon Mnatsakanyan and the former presidents of Artsakh.
To have a place and role in the political future of the Armenian people, a tightening of the muscles of mind and spirit is necessary, along with serious propaganda work in which broad layers of our compatriots must be involved. That is why, working day and night, we supported our friends who share our ideological, political, and informational goals to create ABC Media, which in its 2.5 years of activity managed to secure a dignified and professional place in the media field — a bold platform with its own character and identity, a bearer and promoter of national and universal values. It has produced ideas and voiced political — sharp yet reasoned and responsible — discourse, whose aim is to rationally and calculatedly overcome post-war traumas, straighten the broken spine, and realize the vision of having a strong, secure, and developed country.
Armenia must rid itself of the collaborationist — or anti-national, anti-state — puppet authorities, and this process must be shaped by the idea and mechanisms of collective leadership. There is no individual or political current, force, or party in Armenia that can defeat the machinery of evil and wickedness in power on its own. Power should not merely be changed; rather, this miserable group that is burying Armenia’s present and future must be completely stripped of power — and not only by legal votes at polling stations, but also through street resistance and legitimate pressure, later being subjected to political, moral, and judicial accountability. Only in this way will it be possible to close the page of defeat and national shame and move forward.
For these and dozens of other reasons, I personally made an extremely responsible — I admit, mature and logical — decision: to engage in the upcoming political and electoral processes with the full scope and capacity of my intellectual, organizational, and leadership resources, fully aware of the reality that going to elections against the current authorities means a predetermined defeat. Nevertheless, the vision of having a truly democratic country implies forming, through elections, a government that enjoys public trust, which by a legal and legitimate public vote will be able to halt the accelerating machine of Armenia’s existential decline and, with new and modern approaches, shape the security, economic, technological, and civilizational future of the Armenian state.
To achieve this goal, we must fight for every voter, go door to door, explain and convince our compatriots and citizens that having a good village is not enough — to have a strong community, you must strengthen your state; that asphalt and street lighting do not yet guarantee border security and a prosperous life; that we are one nation regardless of our political views; that our salvation is in our own hands; and that success comes to those nations that can, through smart solutions, become self-sufficient rather than beggars dependent on the whimsical decisions of this or that power.
Meanwhile, since last September we have launched intensive consultations and negotiations, refining and grouping our like‑minded people and partners who work for Armenians and Armenia. We may differ in wording and tactical issues — one may believe that we should not walk the path with this particular color of the opposition palette, another may think that if we all agree to remove the power of evil, then we should work without obstructing one another. This is a tactic that can transform during political processes, and I urge our compatriots not to show prejudice and not to adopt this vicious practice of destroying one another, because it benefits only Armenia’s anti-national authorities, with their propaganda machine and political satellites.
The upcoming election is not a routine, regular, ordinary political event; it is a question of the Armenian state’s — and in the long term, the continuity or very existence of the Armenian ethnic element’s — survival.
Who will contribute to the “reproduction” of the current authorities? It will be the one who disrupts cooperation and weakens the core of the electorate. Nikol Pashinyan’s dictatorship will be reproduced if no force or forces with real political teeth stand up to it. They must offer voters a genuine alternative, not merely an impression.
Those who know us, our path, and our biography of never slipping into anyone’s pocket know well that at every stage of political and ideological struggle we did not yield to any temptation. We continued our work confidently and modestly, guarding our principles like the apple of our eye and remaining unwavering in our commitment not to deviate even a fraction from our national and state‑building values. We shared our experience, knowledge, and skills; we did not turn the idea of stripping power into an end in itself; we stayed in the streets, endured the repression of this authoritarian system, and did not shout, fully understanding that the fight against a nation‑destroying machine requires strong nerves, mind, heart, soul, and perseverance… We worked with our compatriots, tried to bring about an ideological awakening — to think and act for the sake of Armenians and Armenia… We also voiced constructive criticism, but so delicately and cautiously that we would not become an opposition within the opposition and would not endanger the work begun by our friends and partners.
We have our programs for the future. By the way, I have borrowed the word “future” (galiq, literally “what is to come”) from the prisoner of conscience, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, whose presence we honor and carry with dignity in all our actions, in mind and in spirit. It was precisely the Holy Father who replaced the desecrated word apaga (future) with galiq. Our programs for what is to come stem from our national goals.
Armenia is not merely in a political crisis, but in a civilizational and statehood crisis. The current political system cannot ensure the reproduction of the state. What is needed is a renewed political beginning — with new thinking, a fresh political elite, and a new institutional logic. Genesis Armenia does not position itself as a structure that renders a “bear’s service” to a dysfunctional political system; rather, we are advocates of a project of political renewal. We do not fall into the trap set by the authorities, nor do we swim in the cynical and self‑serving discourse of past versus present. Instead, we propose technocratic, rational thinking; the primacy of national and state interests; diplomatic flexibility, but also a solid value foundation. This is less a classic “right–left” division and more the application of a model of state‑builders vs. system‑destroyers.
Therefore, in the context of the upcoming elections, we are obliged to present to our society our systematic approaches to Armenia’s future: a comprehensive revision of the security system — not only the armed forces, but also the restoration of diplomatic, economic, informational, and institutional security; in foreign relations — neither vertical subordination nor adventurism, but pragmatic multi‑vector policy; effective governance of state institutions; formation of a professional state apparatus; strengthening mechanisms of political accountability; economic development based on productivity rather than distributive promises; human capital — education, science, technology; and a social state achieved not through charity, but through dignified work. This discourse is more social-democratic than a destructive neoliberal and populist approach.
And what does the current system propose? The so‑called “era of peace,” in which Armenia adapts itself to the flow of deceptive and fragile international legitimacy and processes — an Armenia whose security is conditioned by overvalued external arrangements and weak internal institutions. We say: peace has no alternative if it is comprehensive, just, and lasting. We say: peace cannot replace state subjectivity. Armenia is not an adapting unit, a reactive state, but an initiating and reorganizing state — one that renounces not its national identity, but the vicious phenomena of the past.
