Nuclear powers do not wage war against each other. In the past, everything was clear - wars were fought to conquer territories, control resources, and colonize weak countries. As a result of wars, it was decided who would get what part of the spoils of war. Politics and wars were converged.

The superpowers currently wage proxy wars “sitting” at grand chessboards. They sacrifice countries, create new state structures, and seize spheres of influence and resources from each other.  It is a game for some, and a matter of life and death for others. Those who understand the meaning of the game, try to maneuver, make anticipated concessions and properly position to improve probability of success.  In short, the "big ones" play, and the "small ones" try to understand the meaning of the game. Some understand, others fail to understand, paying due consequences for their strategic miscalculations.

Deliberations on "independence" is a matter for widespread speculation in Armenia.

Many groups have made attempts for political participation, choosing the struggle for Armenia's independence as their goal and this or that country "depriving" us of independence as their target.

A question arises whether Armenia is an independent country. The question can be viewed in a broader context: are larger countries, Germany, Japan, Italy, etc., independent? Yes, they are de jure independent, but de facto US military bases are deployed in those countries, so they have strict obligations limiting their degree of freedom.

The degree of sovereignty shows the dependence of this or that country on other countries and international structures. In particular, Brexit - UK’s withdrawal from the EU, was based on the fact that it did not want to delegate part of its sovereignty to the EU, that is, UK wanted to be more independent. If Armenia joins the Eurasian Economic Union or the Collective Security Treaty Organization, it cedes part of its sovereignty to that structure; and if it joins the EU and NATO, it cedes to the latter. It is different if it joins none of the structures at all. However, the supporters of "independence" do not discuss such an issue, rather they discuss the expediency of alternative dependence, implying that they are not talking about "independence" but the expediency of alternative dependence, which is not directly discussed.

This war has shown that the winner country should not only take effective political and military measures. It also matters who will be given and who will not be given funding, military training, arms, or other forms of material assistance and intelligence data in sustaining its war effort.

This was an obvious demonstration of proxy war, management from outside. Our failures were, first of all, in the political field, and the war was just its consequence. No matter how brave the soldier fights, he is powerless against modern technologies, and that simply implies politics.