The government established in 1991, which comprised mainly the employees of Yerevan scientific research institutes and Soviet dissidents, had neither management experience nor any ideas on the fundamentals of the state. It was exactly like today. The difficult socio-economic situation, the political chaos, and the war unleashed by Azerbaijan did not leave time to think about all those things. Decisions were made on the spur of the moment, hastily, with wrong and right steps following each other, as it might occur.

It was typical not only of Armenia, but also of all former post-Soviet countries. We should also take into account that those countries were bearers of different civilizational values. For example, the republics of Central Asia and Azerbaijan had very little in common with the Baltic states. Armenia and Georgia had certain commonalities with Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, and even now it is difficult to assess the civilizational belonging of Moldova.

Despite all the above mentioned, it was the liberal forces or those who identified themselves as such who came to power in Armenia. They were figures for whom the free market and the European path were a "magic wand". Levon Ter-Petrosyan's infamous definition that national ideology is a false category was not accidental. Mind you, what ideology could be talked about when all ideologies had been defeated, there was the only one left, liberalism with its free market, a globalist project that promised us a happy future after going through some hardships.

However, life has shown that there are not peaceful and happy times ahead, but severe geopolitical conflicts. The Russo-Ukrainian war is a vivid example of this. In the struggle for global supremacy, small countries play the role of objects, which are tools for the formation of large markets and the opening and closing of new, geopolitically significant communications.

In such conditions, problems arise for small nations, especially in terms of which side of the conflicting camps they are on and whether they can afford to be on the side of the big predators and not suffer from it.
It should be added that being on one side or the other sometimes implies a civilizational choice. This is where the problem of national ideologies arises, and whether we like it or not, in addition to the geopolitical choice, we have to make a civilizational choice as well.

This is also important due to the fact that in such turbulent times, only the nations capable of uniting can protect their national interest, and consolidation, as a rule, takes place around a unifying idea or, what is the same, through the value system of a given people. It is a national ideology that has turned away from us catastrophically, where the word "national" should not mean ethnic affiliation, but rather state citizenship.