A year ago, on September 27 the second war was unleashed against Artsakh. It took many by surprise, nonetheless it was only the date and the hour of hostilities that took those who followed the events professionally by surprise. The probability of war was actually high. The leader of Azerbaijan openly stated about it, the official representatives of the superpowers - US diplomat Bolton, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and others spoke about it in closed and open formats, and finally the experts expressing government views warned about it.

The war showed that we were unprepared for it both in military-political and moral terms. The defeat was painful.  Thousands of servicemen, peaceful civilians were killed. We lost villages and towns, and the worst was the collapse of the second Armenian statehood, the security of the remaining population of which is provided by Russian peacekeepers. To be completely honest, Armenia's security is also ensured by Russia, and the level of Armenia's being a subject has significantly decreased. Naturally, if we are not able to protect the security of our borders ourselves, if we do not produce armament, and our economy is supported by international loans and aid, what kind of sovereignty can we talk about?

This is, unfortunately, our inglorious "harvest" of 30 years of independence. And it seems that the political and public thought had to be analyzed in order to understand why we reached this state, what mistakes we made, where we stumbled, but there was zero attention. Whereas, revealing mistakes, learning from them and drawing the right conclusions should have been our primary task. Even before the war, history textbooks had to provide analytical reasons for our previous failures so that we could review our future plans and strategic guidelines and correct any shortcomings. It was not done earlier, it is not done now either.

The heroes of the First Artsakh War, who found themselves as MPs in the post-war period, discredited themselves and the army, the parliament and the whole political system in general. Let's remember General Manvel Grigoryan, General Seyran Saroyan, Shmays and others. The parliament was also a tempting "roof" for big businessmen, who defended their property through the mandate of an MP, but also discredited the political parties they represent. Whereas, these two groups of politicians, whose example was given, could, by staying away from politics and doing their job, not only bring more benefit to the country and the people, but also be the people who are respected in the society.

A bad example is contagious. Even today, the generation that grew up in conditions of injustice, seizing the power and appearing in the parliament, in fact, takes a kind of "revenge" upon our statehood. Educated and fooled by Indian and low-ranking local criminal soap operas, the voter casts his vote for them, seeing the "former" as an opponent of the system that gave "birth" to and "brought up" them and those young people. This is a process of self-destruction, which started in 2018 and the end of which is not visible.

The state is first of all an idea, the basis of which is the value system that unites everyone. To build a state means to create and inject such a value system into society. But for thirty years we have not been able to create such a value system. Moreover, what we had was destroyed and continues to be destroyed.

This is today's reality, which we do not try to understand, draw conclusions and be changed.