Category Archives: EDITORIAL

THE FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENTS OF OUR IDENTITY

The article examines the interrelation of language, history, and culture as essential components of collective identity. These domains do not function in isolation but form an integrated system of memory, symbolism, and values that ensures the continuity of community existence.

From a phenomenological perspective, history reveals the temporal depths of collective experience, language organizes and mediates processes of thought and communication, while culture embodies traditions and simultaneously generates new meanings. The Armenian experience illustrates that the vitality of historical memory, the symbolic power of language, and the continuity of cultural values serve as crucial sources of resistance against oblivion, fragmentation, and assimilation. In the context of current situation, the distortion of history, the commodification of languages, and the marginalization of culture threaten the foundations of identity, reducing it to superficial diversity.

The article argues that scholarship must counter these processes by adopting integrative methodologies that unite linguistic, historical, and cultural perspectives. This approach is not only epistemological but also ethical, becoming a form of resistance to oblivion, standardization, and distortion. Thus, the humanities acquire existential significance, serving as a preventive and constructive force for the preservation of identity and the possibility of future coexistence.

THE NEW WORLD ORDER AND THE OLD TURKEY

The current publication reveals the political blackmail techniques employed by R. Erdoğan nearly a decade ago toward the leadership of China, and later Russia, and compares them with Ankara’s recent attempts to exploit the contradictions among global superpowers.

Let us recall that for years, R. Erdoğan had accused China of committing genocide in Xinjiang. However, in 2017, he managed to reach an understanding with Beijing—sacrificing his “Uyghur brothers” in the process. Prior to that, after downing a Russian military aircraft near the Syrian border, Erdoğan secured profitable gas deals with Russia while simultaneously reinforcing “Brother Ilham’s” position in the South Caucasus.

Now, after years of strained relations with the United States, Erdoğan is moving toward legitimizing the genocidal regime of “Brother al-Sharaa” in Syria. At the same time, he is attempting to bargain for a “Zangezur corridor” in exchange for accepting the Russian status of Crimea.

The publication demonstrates that Erdoğan, who has long played on the weaknesses of global powers, is now trying to skillfully take advantage of the clear utilitarianism of the new U.S. administration—something directly related to efforts to contain U.S. national debt and prevent dollar depreciation.

In early 2025, before the Trump administration had clarified its position on U.S.-China relations, Turkey’s president used Ilham Aliyev’s April 22 visit to China to remind official Beijing—on Azerbaijan’s behalf—of the mutual obligations outlined in the 2017 Turkish-Chinese agreement, thereby making Azerbaijan a party to them as well.

Taking into account the inevitable improvement in Russian-American relations and the potential formation of a “Entente-2”, Turkey has sought certain security guarantees from China concerning its territorial integrity. It is now clear that, by drawing Azerbaijan into the game, these guarantees will be used to transform China into a trench-digging instrument in the South Caucasus.

In conclusion, the publication suggests that Turkey’s hopes for a restoration of a bipolar world order currently lack serious foundations, as today’s global competition revolves not around quantity, but around qualitative resources—the majority of which remain under U.S. control. Moreover, Turkey’s multi-vector games have already begun to raise concerns among its patron, the United Kingdom. Hence, having been informed in advance about the upcoming resignation of his old friend—the head of British intelligence Richard Moore—Erdoğan began taking steps toward resolving the Kurdish issue as early as the end of last year.

WHO IS THE ARMENIAN? – 2017-4

Summary

Key words – Armenia, identity, coherent vision, identity crisis, the principle of justice, bourgeoisization, social ideology.

The main tragedy of modern Armenian society, which turned out to be a whirlpool of internal and external complex and contradictory processes, is the lack of a vision of coexistence together with universal human content. In order to turn the national goals into a political plane, Armenia must become a tempting social environment that will attract Armenians as a magnet. This is hampered by the fact that in Armenia today there are no minimum conditions for the formation of a national environment of coexistence, that is, the formation of common interests and aspirations of an individual, society and state based on the principle of justice, which gives each of them a clear clear vision of a common future. On the contrary, a hedonistic society was formed in modern Armenia. And the younger generation, brought up by such a society, is infected with the same diseases. Overcoming the crisis of self-identification in modern Armenian society by creating a vision of a common future means the formation of the new ideal of Armenia that will fight against the general bourgeoisization of the country. This vision presupposes the existence of a social ideology. Only in the process of formation of internal equilibrium, a new perception of one’s own identity arises, in which the national memory turns into a totality of trembling modern biorhythms.

ARMENIA AND KURDISTAN: NEIGHBORHOOD IN CUSTODY – 2017-3

Summary

Key words – Iraqi Kurdistan, Eastern Question, Armenian Question, Kurdish Question, Treaty of Sèvres, Alliance between Lenin and Ataturk, Khoyboun, Treaty of Saadabad, Abdullah Ocalan, Kurdistan Workers’ Party.

The geopolitical processes that began after the referendum of the Iraqi Kurdistan on September 25, 2017 come from both the current political calculations of separate states and the strategic goals of transforming the entire region. In order to neutralize the influence of the Russian «hammer» in the north of our region, the United States has already secured its presence in Georgia, therefore, while when forming the Iraqi Kurdistan, which casts doubt on the integrity of the Turkish «anvil», geopolitical pressure on the two geopolitical «locks» of our region begins. The first of these is based on the agreements signed by Lenin and Ataturk in 1920s. Relatively speaking, this is the «lock» put on the Armenian question, and the second one is the «lock» put on the Kurdish question, i. e. the Saadabad pact in 1930s. The first «lock» closes the future geopolitical changes in the vertical, and the second one – horizontally. And this means that, as in the past, so today, the fate of Armenians and Kurds intersect with each other, but this time not in the form of a head-on collision of mutual interests, but in the form of intersections of two neighboring geopolitical «prisons cells».

The program of fragmentation of the region is impossible without Armenia’s active participation. And in this case we do not pretend to the territory of «Great Armenia», as Wilson’s Armenia and the Republic of Armenia together with Artsakh and Nakhijevan make up one third of the historical lands of Armenia. On November 22, 1920, with his wise arbitration award, the President of the United States, the greatest Democrat of the time, W. Wilson clearly divided the historical territories of Armenia into three parts, so that none of the three parties – Kurds, Turks and Armenians, would be unhappy. This was the verdict of a civilized world, the implementation of which was postponed due to the formation of the alliance between Lenin and Ataturk, but not removed from the strategic agenda of the superpowers.

IRONY OF PARADOX OF HISTORY – 2014-1

According to the tale­novel by Mkrtich Sargsyan “Nazar the Brave”

Summary

Sergey A. Aghajanyan
This article is the third one in a series of studies devoted to the phenomenon of artistic embodiment of the image “Nazar the Brave.” In this article it comes to a fairy tale-novel of Mkrtich Sargsyan “Nazar the Brave” (1980). The author has combined the main observations that were in scientific papers of philological bias and added his own comments. Cultural aspect of the study was used in order to comment on the material comprising the circumstances, the idea of creating an allegorical novel, caused especially by the Soviet experience