In a state of such turbulence, one should be more prudent, consolidate resources and think about protection. Hrant Khachatryan

The situation created in Armenia is not completely new, all this happened about 30-35 years ago: there were the same sentiments in society and the same discussions. Therefore, one can draw parallels between the two periods and find many similarities, although there are also significant differences. Hrant Khachatryan, deputy of the 2-3 convocations of the National Assembly of Armenia, politician, mentioned this in a conversation with "Detq".

"In 1988, when the Artsakh movement began, there were other global processes. The Soviet Union had reached a state where it could not exist in that form and in that state. At that time, we all had a historical sediment in us, by which we oriented ourselves on what achievements the Armenian people could have in the context of world events. Even then, it was clear that there was a redistribution of the poles of influence in the world. Even then, there were international organizations, international law, and our generation mainly chose a path that brought us victories, conquests, the liberation of territories and the formation of an independent Armenia in the sense that Armenia acquired the status of a republic, the highest according to international law. But at that time it was already clear that the redistribution of the world would not end with that stage, and there would be a next stage. At the time, we estimated that the next phase would be approximately 20 years from now. And indeed, processes began in 2010 that are still ongoing. There were also predictions that there would be violent clashes, war, and it seemed that we were preparing for that stage. I was one of those people who thought I should prepare better. It's not that we prepared badly, but we should have worked harder and prepared better," said our interlocutor.

According to Hrant Khachatryan's observation, that phase began with the experimental clashes that took place in 2016, which were later not properly assessed, after which a change of government took place against the background of that dissatisfaction. "It can be said that it was objective in the sense that it was necessary to make a change before the escalation of events, and here some people made a mistake. However, the mistake was not related to persons, but a methodological error, because during the past years in Armenia, emphasis was placed on persons, not on ideas and especially on structures. That is why every time we find ourselves in difficult situations. And today I agree with those people who think that the situation in Armenia is critical. There were such statements from all camps that Armenia is on the verge of a new genocide, and these assessments are objective, but some of the conclusions are extremely opposite, and if we do not accept this mistake, we are predisposed from the beginning that if this group is removed from us, everything will fall into place. It is the biggest methodological error in our reality."

The politician emphasizes that the main role of individuals now is to be able to create channels with society and lead them on the path of healthy criticism.

"The oppositional field tries to attract uninvolved people to its side, mainly by scaring them with negativity, but this information is lost because the person does not agree that he is nothing and must be taught by someone. Everyone needs to discuss their beliefs and is even willing to change them if they feel that they too are heard and understood.

Today, in a state of such turbulence, small nations like us must be more prudent and, most importantly, strong as a core. In this general panorama, internal misunderstandings, regardless of whether they are exacerbated intentionally or due to life, are completely inappropriate and bring the chances of mutual understanding to zero," he said.

Today, the phenomena that take place on the part of the government are harmful and dangerous, our interlocutor thinks, emphasizing that it is the government, not the government system, because there is no system as such.

"The system is a closed environment of certain elements, which are connected with each other by many and complex connections, and if the weakest connection is broken, the whole system can collapse. Today, we cannot talk about either the government, the state, or the public system, because there are no systemic connections, they are separate elements, which together are called a system, but do not actually function as such.

The first task of the government is management, management of all systems of the country, and the purpose of management is the consolidation of resources. When the government initially divides all the country's resources into two parts and pits one against the other, it means that the country becomes twice as weak, purely theoretically. And it doesn't even make sense to talk about the next danger, that is, from an element that is called to manage the national resource, if it cannot do it, the number one problem becomes the reassembly of the state system. It means throwing away the useless elements and assembling a new structure from useful elements that will be able to manage," said Khachatryan.

Referring to the question that today the citizens of RA are presented with the idea that if we do not make concessions, the alternative is war, the politician noted. "It is playing on the strings of people's emotions, and I wouldn't say that only the government is playing on those strings, the opposition also has that way of working. But in reality, they should try to connect with systemic ties, not fight. Fighting with the whole world is not something for a smart person, we now, including the Diaspora, must come together and think about our defense, and the best defense is offense. If we gather our resources and work in certain directions, we will be able to get our boat to the next port in this rough environment. Today, people's brains must work towards the goal of pooling resources in a turbulent environment and bringing our ship-state to port."