After the 44-day Artsakh war, the pursuit of Armenia's sovereignty has sharply declined. It is a well-known fact that any country, whose security and border protection were left to another country, in our case Russia, any country that is not economically self-sufficient and relies heavily on foreign aid, would be in such a situation. Moreover, Artsakh conflict resolution almost entirely depends on Russia in the context of its geopolitical interests.

This is the gloomy picture of post-war Armenia. But our goal is not to remind about all these problems once again. Our task is to understand the logic of Armenia's political struggle against the backdrop of the mentioned realities, the issues the ruling and opposition political forces of the country should and can debate about, the topic of political discourse and the urgent agenda arising from it.

If we make ourselves follow the parliamentary sessions, which is hard to do, we will get convinced that our impression is not so exaggerated regarding the fact that the parliamentarians are discussing issues which have nothing to do with the challenges facing the state and the people. Thus, the opposition is trying to remind once again that the incumbent authorities are incompetent, "capitulators" and "land surrenderors". Everyone knows what the authorities are, but it is unknown what political proposal the opposition, which aspires to become the next government, has.

Here serious problems and thoughts arise, the answers to which are not given by the opposition powers. For example, by coming to power, will they revoke Armenia's signature in 2020 Moscow trilateral document of November 9, will they not hold talks with Azerbaijan, do they have any realistic alternative program or not? Or will they pursue effective economic policy, personnel policy, or security strategy, etc.?

During the latest elections, some of the voters rejected Pashinyan and voted for Kocharyan, the other part, on the contrary, rejected Kocharyan and voted for Pashinyan. The overwhelming majority of the voters rejected both of them, that is, the elections were held not on the principle of "for", but "against". Rejecting, in other words, "against" is easy, but, as we see, it is difficult to decide on "for", while "for" can be in favor of the future Armenia’s political project, which is understandable and reliable for voters.

These "rejections" continue in the parliament of the eighth convocation, but there is no real and rational political debate. If there is no future-oriented political debate, then political thought cannot be generated and, moreover, full-fledged political life.

The absence of political life is only as a result of the impoverishment of political thought. It would be a pity if this situation continues for a long time.