“Zhamanak” suggests that the former ruling system cannot be associated even with the concept of being opposition as “it affects the prospect of the formation of a new opposition in Armenia.” “The former ruling system cannot be considered opposition and the reason is not even that a considerable part of that system, including the one possessing media resources, declared itself outside the political status, the underlying reason is that the former ruling system has put the public outside the political status, and even the public groups dissatisfied with the new government in this sense differentiate their attitude towards their issues and the former ruling system,” the paper says.
“Zhoghovurd” writes: “Head of the State Oversight Service Davit Sanasarian has violated rules of ethics set out under article 28 of the Law on Public Service by not contributing to “the credibility of and respect towards his office and the body he represents.” This conclusion has been made by the Ethics Committee for High-Ranking Officials within the framework of a probe initiated on the basis of an application of Yerevan State University Rector Aram Simonian. What’s interesting is that still on February 19 Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian made a remarkable statement in the National Assembly about former activists who occupy state posts today. He said that “many think that if in the past the platforms of their activities were Facebook accounts it is also so now and by posting harsh statements they can go and check some organizations without thinking that this posted statement can be a basis for litigation.”… Many think that Sanasarian was one of the addressees of these remarks.”
Lragir.am queries whether it is realistic that Nagorno-Karabakh can return to the table of negotiations with Azerbaijan. “Different people say that there is no possibility for that and that in the foreseeable future Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be a negotiating party. Azerbaijan and the mediators, they say, will not accept that. And this circumstance brings about another question – in forming its agenda does the State have to be guided by goals that have guaranteed ways of achievement? Or should they be formed not based on the guaranteed result but rather on necessity, state interest, security and strategic prospect? After all, if it is necessary to formulate only objectives with guaranteed results, it diminishes the significance and function of the State altogether,” the online publication writes.