«Ռազմավարություն» - Հարցազրույց Հրաչյա ԱՐԶՈՒՄԱՆՅԱՆԻ հետ

The article by Karen Aghekyan and Hrachya Arzumanyan continues the discussion of R. Arzumanyan's work "Strategy," previously published in the journal, and in this second conversation reveals key aspects of the nature of modern war and the causes of the strategic ineffectiveness of Armenianhood.

Introduction and Methodology
The material is structured as an interview, in which Karen Aghekyan poses questions drawing on classical texts of military strategy, while Hrachya Arzumanyan interprets and updates them in relation to Armenian realities of the 21st century. The discussion covers the second and third parts of the author's article "Strategy."

The Continuum of War and New Domains of Confrontation
Arzumanyan insists on the illegitimacy of reducing modern war exclusively to the informational or psychological dimension. The key premise of the article is the thesis of a continuous space of war, in which the boundaries between domains are conditional:

the physical domain of traditional war;
the informational domain;
the cognitive domain;
the social domain.

War is waged simultaneously in all arenas (diplomacy, politics, economics) and in all domains; only shifts in emphasis are possible, but victory is always singular.

The Information Space as a New "Common Environment"
Developing Alfred Mahan's idea of the open sea as a "common space," the author shows how the information environment of the 21st century partially takes over the functions of the sea — becoming an arena of trade and communication that influences a state's position in the global hierarchy. The distinctions of this new environment include:

low cost of access;
control exercised predominantly by corporations and individuals rather than states;
the absence of physical limits to expansion;
the central role of the human personality, with its creativity and cultural foundation.

Causes of the Ineffectiveness of Armenianhood
Responding to a question about the weakness of Armenianhood in modern war, Arzumanyan points to a deep-seated problem — the archaic nature of Armenian thinking, philosophy, and political thought, which tends to copy others' solutions without regard for its own context. The key deficiency is the absence of a clear vision of Armenia and the Armenian World in the 21st century, without which it is impossible to apply the classical strategic triad of "ends–ways–means."

The Problem of Compromise and the Perception of Victory
A separate section is devoted to the distortion of the meaning of the Artsakh War in international perception, where the aggressor and the victim switch places, and Turkey is assigned the role of mediator despite the ongoing blockade. The author emphasizes a historical paradox: the Armenian people are more accustomed to enduring defeats than to managing victory, which gives rise to cognitive dissonance and a pull toward new concessions instead of consolidating what has been achieved.

Conclusion
The key conclusion of the article is that the state of protracted confrontation with the Turkic world is a long-term constant of the existence of Armenian statehood, and the question of the permissibility of compromises directly depends on what goals — preserving a "reservation" or building a strong state with the return of the Highlands — the Armenian people set for themselves as a nation.