Hayk Balanyan's Article "'One Cannot Remain Above the Fray'"

Hayk Balanyan's article represents a critical commentary on Rachya Arzumanyan's "Political Notes" and is devoted to analyzing the role of Artsakh in the context of the crisis of Armenian statehood and the "Fourth Republic" project.

Introduction and Methodology

The author proceeds from Arzumanyan's thesis on the paradigm of two Armenian states, pointing out that this model has already lost its relevance and reflects rather the outdated conceptions of Artsakh intellectuals than the actual state of affairs. Particular attention is devoted to a critique of the idea of Artsakh's "protective" function, which, according to Balanyan, requires clarification—protective of precisely what is meant.

Key Proposition: The Depletion of Artsakh's Resources

The author asserts that Artsakh has in fact ceased to be a moderator of ashkharh-wide processes, since its moral, ideological, and personnel resources were squandered in elite and financial conflicts. In this connection, the following points are highlighted:

• The system that took shape in both states led to a concentration of financial and political resources in the presidential administration of the Republic of Armenia;
• Protectionism was in fact directed at defending Artsakh itself, rather than fulfilling a broader function;
• Any attempt to restore Artsakh's agency inevitably comes into conflict with the actual "protectors" of the existing system.

Artsakh's New Role

Balanyan insists that under conditions of crisis, Artsakh must become the initiator of a new system and new traditions, even if this role proves to be "thankless." The author draws a distinction between a tragic and victorious role, on the one hand, and a "comic" role as protector of the protectors, on the other, emphasizing that the position of standing "above the fray" leads only to Artsakh's isolation and its transformation into an object of manipulation and bargaining by other actors.

From Two States to a Single Organism

A separate section of the article is devoted to the necessity of transitioning from the paradigm of two states to a system of flexible, multi-vector response by a single Armenian organism. The author notes that the strengthening of separate functions is capable of leading not to complementarity but to a deepening of contradictions between Artsakh and Yerevan, as well as to further regionalization of political functions within the Republic of Armenia and the diaspora. As an example, the existence of pro-Western and pro-Russian parliamentary parties in the Republic of Armenia is cited as a sign of the breakdown of what was previously a closed, intra-state mechanism of multi-vector policy.

Conclusion

The key conclusion of the article is that if Artsakh retains a protective function at all, it is only in relation to Armenocentrism as an ideological doctrine, not to the existing political system of the Third Republic. The author agrees with Arzumanyan's thesis on the completion of the Artsakh stage of Armenian political history, adding that this simultaneously signifies the completion of the narrowly Artsakh-centered stage of the history of the NKR. The place of the revival of Armenian politics—Yerevan, Kapan, or Stepanakert—is of no fundamental importance; what matters is that the future breakthrough be grounded in the deep foundations of Armenian existence and appeal to the sovereign rights of the Armenian people.