Search results

The formula of the trinity of the Armenian nation was declared in September 1999 at the first All-Armenian Congress "Armenia–Diaspora". Subsequently, the leaders of Armenia constantly emphasized their commitment to the trinity of Armenia – Artsakh – Diaspora, and a fair solution to the Armenian issue (Armenia within the "Wilson borders" or more extensive). After the defeat in the Second Karabakh War, the Armenian government abandoned the formula of the trinity of the nation. N.Pashinyan declared his commitment exclusively to the state interests of the Republic of Armenia within the borders of the former Armenian SSR. The Armenian opposition, the church and the Diaspora assessed N.Pashinyan's policy as a national betrayal and remained committed to the trinity of the nation. The inability of the opposition to develop a new pan-Armenian strategy and remove N.Pashinyan from power is explained both by its fragmentation and by the disoriented and apathetic state of society. The constitutional reform planned by N.Pashinyan will make it possible to legislate the Armenian state's refusal of the trinity formula and the principles contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of Armenia.

The article analyzes the features of coverage of Russia's policy in the information space of Armenia in the context of a difficult domestic political situation and conflict with neighboring Azerbaijan and Turkey. The destructive role of the external factor caused by the acute conflict between Russia and the collective West is shown.

This article analyses the Karabakh problem, the politics of the conflicting parties, Russia and other countries after the First Karabakh War (1992–1994). The focus is on the results of the Second Karabakh War (September 27 – November 10, 2020) and reasons for the maintenance of a high level of tension in the region. The author concludes that the situation is developing in the direction of a new military confrontation, and not on the path of a peaceful settlement. The desire of the conflicting parties to use the Russian factor exclusively in their own interests contradicts the position of the leadership of the Russian Federation, which strives to preserve its neutral position of the mediator who contributes to the resolution of the conflict through negotiations and the development of mutually acceptable solutions. In 2021–2022 numerous formal peacemaking initiatives of the USA and its allies did not lead to a reduction in tension, but allowed to block the process of a peaceful settlement under the mediation and auspices of Russia, to create prerequisites for the liquidation of the Russian military presence in Nagorno-Karabakh and in Armenia. Thus, the policy of the collective West increased the probability of new shocks and military conflicts in the South Caucasus.

The proclamation of the independence of Armenia in 1918 symbolized for the Armenians the restoration of national statehood. The idea of having its own historical territory, which in the past was divided by the borders of different states, but should be united in the future, is of fundamental importance for the Armenian nation. The first attempt to implement it in practice was made in the process of changing the borders after the First World War. According to the Treaty of Sevres in 1920 and the arbitration decision of US President Wilson, a united Armenia was created with an area of about 160 thousand square kilometers. In 1923, the Entente states renounced the Treaty of Sevres and concluded the Treaty of Lausanne with Turkey. After the establishment of Soviet power in Transcaucasia, border agreements were concluded between the USSR and Turkey. In Armenia, the Treaty of Sevres continues to be considered valid, the majority of political parties are in favor of resolving territorial disputes on its basis. After the unsuccessful Second Karabakh War for Armenia, N.Pashinyan took steps to normalize relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey. Russia expressed its readiness to guarantee security and assist in the delimitation and demarcation of the borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Further prospects for the development of the situation in the region largely depend on whether the Armenian leadership manages to develop a foreign policy course that will allow normalizing relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey, but at the same time will not cause a sharp reaction of rejection in the Armenian society.

Blockchain is a new information technology that can be used in many areas of human activity. The fi rst and most famous example of the use of blockchain technology is the Bitcoin cryptocurrency. Today, cryptocurrency has transformed into a publicly recognized means of payment, a virtual currency that is accepted by large and small enterprises, corporations and services. Today, they conduct research and implement a number of projects using Blockchain technology in such areas as healthcare, media, electronic voting, fi le storage, smart contracts, insurance, the public sector (issuing passports, collecting taxes, registering land plots), etc. The IBM Corporation is researching Blockchain technology and is working on the creation of software, with the help of which partners will be able to conclude digital contracts that will be recorded in the global network. IBM is also implementing a project called Adept, which aims to track network-connected devices using Blockchain technology. The purpose of this article is to study the directions of using Blockchain in public policy.

The post-Soviet history of the South Caucasus is divided into three stages of different duration, format and character. The first stage (1991-2008) began after the collapse of the USSR and continued until the war in South Ossetia in August 2008. At this time, the formation of independent states took place, the vectors of foreign policy of the new states were determined. The second stage of the post-Soviet history of the South Caucasus (2008-2020) began after a five-day war and Russia's recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia has strengthened its position in the South Caucasus by building a long-term system of response to potential threats in the southern direction. The Georgian factor has ceased to play an important role, the Armenian direction has become the main one in the policy of the United States and the collective West. To reformat the South Caucasus in American interests, "football diplomacy" was used, and then the second Karabakh war followed. After the end of the second Karabakh war, the third stage of the post-Soviet development of the South Caucasus began. At the end of 2020, Moscow managed to stabilize the situation and bring a contingent of Russian peacekeepers into the conflict zone. Further prospects for the development of the South Caucasus depend on many contradictory factors. The more tense the international situation and Russia's relations with the United States and the collective West will be, the higher the likelihood of the outbreak of new wars and conflicts in the South Caucasus.

The idea that Armenia is a global nation was first publicly announced in 2011. In this article various interpretations of this idea are analysed, the role it plays in the current Republic of Armenia politics, its influence in relationship with Armenian diasporas in Russia, USA, France and other countries. It is demonstrated that at the time of the Karabakh war in 2020 the idea of a "Global Armenian Nation" failed to play a consolidating role. Disunity and internal contradictions have weakened the position of the Armenian side and became one of the reasons for the defeat in the military conflict. A conclusion is made that the idea of a "Global Armenian Nation" has to be rethought given the negative experience of the war in 2020. Without this the idea of a "Global Armenian Nation" can lose its actuality and influence in a new domestic political and global context.

The author of the article analyzes the present situation on the territory of the Karabakh conflict and the positions taken by the parties. These are based on a "package approach" (Armenia) and a "step by step approach" (Azerbaijan). The two approaches conflict with one another, which is the main reason why the negotiations under the OSCE Minsk Group fail. This makes the armed scenario of solving the problem likely. The author describes Russia's policy, which seeks to prevent a new war in Karabakh by maintaining a comparable military-political balance of power. Given the situation, the main task of the OSCE Minsk Group and Russian diplomacy is to create effective mechanisms to prevent resumption of hostilities. International ceasefire monitoring will create conditions for resuming talks to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Karabakh conflict. Otherwise, the Karabakh problem will continue cause international tension.

This article provides a detailed analysis of the new trends of development of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights. Since 1967, Israel has established about 150 settlements in the West Bank in addition to some 100 «outposts» or illegal settlements without Israeli official authorization. Now the settler population has estimated at over 520,000; the annual average rate of growth during the past decade was 5.3%, compared to 1.8% for the Israeli population as whole. As is known, after the Annapolis Conference held on 27 November 2007 Israel under the pressure from the international community announced officially not to create new settlements. But the Israeli authorities are now actively expanding in the occupied Palestinian territory, «border zones» or «buffer zones» in order to confiscate Palestinian land between the separation fence and the Palestinian communities located at a sufficient distance away from the wall.This study reveals the new forms and methods, aims and objectives of the Israeli official settlement policy and indicates a negative influence of the settlement factor on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiating process, political and socio-economic situation in the Middle East. The author do not exclude the possibility that if the political decision based on the principle of coexistence of two States not be achieved in the nearest future we may see soon on the map of the West Bank some Palestinian enclaves completely isolated like the Gaza Strip now. It is obvious that in the Jordan Valley and another parts of «zone C» Israel aims to do that it did in the area, where the block of settlements Maale Adumim is located, which Israeli politicians now consider an integral part of the territory of the State of Israel.