Краткая лекция в ответ на волнительную реакцию терекемейского интеллектуала по поводу родства ромов и азербайджанских татар
В этот день, 30 июня 1918 года, архиепископ Даниэль (Таниел) Агапян, духовный пастырь Восточного Легиона (Légion d'Orient), освятил церковь Святого Степаноса (Սուրբ Ստեփանոս / Sourp Stepanos) в Ларнаке.
Церковь Сурб Степанос изначально была построена как часовня армянскими беженцами, прибывшими в Ларнаку после резни в Адане в 1909 году. Однако, поскольку большинство из них вернулось в Адану в течение года, строительство часовни так и не было завершено. После начала кампании по сбору средств 24 октября 1912 года, маленькая часовня превратилась в полноценную церковь, строительство которой завершилось 1 апреля 1913 года. Она была построена как копия главной церкви Аданы и была посвящена её небесному покровителю — Святому Степаносу.
Посвящённая памяти мучеников Аданской резни, эта церковь стала первым памятником во всей армянской диаспоре, увековечившим память о резне армян в Османской империи. Церковь была торжественно открыта 20 апреля 1914 года старшим архимандритом Серовбе Самуэляном, а освящена — 30 июня 1918 года архиепископом Даниэлем Агапяном, духовным руководителем Армянского легиона
Церковь Сурб Степанос изначально была построена как часовня армянскими беженцами, прибывшими в Ларнаку после резни в Адане в 1909 году. Однако, поскольку большинство из них вернулось в Адану в течение года, строительство часовни так и не было завершено. После начала кампании по сбору средств 24 октября 1912 года, маленькая часовня превратилась в полноценную церковь, строительство которой завершилось 1 апреля 1913 года. Она была построена как копия главной церкви Аданы и была посвящена её небесному покровителю — Святому Степаносу.
Посвящённая памяти мучеников Аданской резни, эта церковь стала первым памятником во всей армянской диаспоре, увековечившим память о резне армян в Османской империи. Церковь была торжественно открыта 20 апреля 1914 года старшим архимандритом Серовбе Самуэляном, а освящена — 30 июня 1918 года архиепископом Даниэлем Агапяном, духовным руководителем Армянского легиона
Друзья, подписывайтесь на тикток Армянского Национального Агентства
Короткие информативные ролики на армянском языке
https://www.tiktok.com/@grigorisraelian?_t=ZS-8xdhePAx877&_r=1
Короткие информативные ролики на армянском языке
https://www.tiktok.com/@grigorisraelian?_t=ZS-8xdhePAx877&_r=1
Вот такие мысли у аналитиков
The Zangezur Spectacle: How Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Armenia Are Deceiving the West
The events unfolding in the South Caucasus during 2024–2025 are not the result of spontaneous tensions or regional instability. What we are witnessing is a meticulously coordinated geopolitical operation in which four actors — Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Armenia — are each playing assigned roles within a common strategic script. The ultimate goal is the opening of the Zangezur Corridor, placing it under joint Russian-Turkish control, while using Azerbaijan as the executor and Armenia as the reluctant legitimizer. This is all staged to appear as a chaotic multipolar conflict, when in fact it is a carefully engineered power shift with deep geopolitical consequences.
Russia is deliberately projecting an image of disengagement and loss of influence in Armenia. It has withdrawn its peacekeepers from Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), allowed Baku to act unilaterally, and publicly tolerated the anti-Russian rhetoric of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Russian officials openly blame Armenia for the collapse of bilateral relations and label the current government as untrustworthy. This generates the perception among Armenians that Russia has “abandoned” them and gives the West the illusion that Russia is losing ground in the region. In reality, the Kremlin is not retreating — it is simply changing tactics. Rather than directly pressuring Armenia, it has delegated the task of coercion to Azerbaijan and Turkey. The Zangezur Corridor — which would connect Azerbaijan to its exclave Nakhchivan through southern Armenia — is a top strategic priority for Moscow, as it offers a land route to Iran that bypasses Georgia and Western-controlled Black Sea transit points. To avoid domestic and international backlash, Russia lets its partners do the heavy lifting while appearing passive.
Azerbaijan plays the role of the aggressive but supposedly independent actor. President Ilham Aliyev’s administration issues direct threats toward Armenia, insisting the corridor will be opened either diplomatically or through military force. At the same time, Baku publicly criticizes Moscow and presents itself as geopolitically autonomous — cultivating ties with Israel, NATO, and even engaging in tactical diplomacy with the EU. Meanwhile, high-profile events such as the arrests of pro-Russian journalists in Baku, the blocking of Russian media channels, and the freezing of certain Russian-linked assets paint a picture of deteriorating Russian-Azerbaijani relations. In response, Moscow initiates legal action against Azerbaijani businessmen, opens investigations into illicit finance operations, and restricts diplomatic channels. However, these are performative clashes. Behind the scenes, Baku remains in close coordination with Russian intelligence and border agencies. Strategic infrastructure negotiations continue uninterrupted, especially regarding the Zangezur Corridor. The tension is staged to conceal the depth of cooperation.
Turkey serves as the facilitator and integrator of the plan. Publicly, Ankara is the political and military patron of Baku, encouraging pressure on Armenia and supporting the concept of a corridor. Simultaneously, Turkey is in continuous diplomatic talks with Russia and Iran, presenting itself as a responsible stabilizing force. Turkey’s deeper objective is to secure a pan-Turkic logistical arc from Istanbul to Central Asia through Nakhchivan and southern Armenia, while allowing Russia to plug into this network via Iranian access points. Turkey positions itself as a NATO power acting “rationally,” but in reality, it is enabling both Moscow and Baku while consolidating control over future trade routes.
Armenia, meanwhile, is not a passive victim — it is a deliberate actor, playing the role of the cornered and helpless small state. The government in Yerevan, led by Pashinyan, amplifies anti-Russian rhetoric, invites EU observer missions, engages in NATO military drills, and appeals to France and the U.S.
The Zangezur Spectacle: How Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Armenia Are Deceiving the West
The events unfolding in the South Caucasus during 2024–2025 are not the result of spontaneous tensions or regional instability. What we are witnessing is a meticulously coordinated geopolitical operation in which four actors — Russia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Armenia — are each playing assigned roles within a common strategic script. The ultimate goal is the opening of the Zangezur Corridor, placing it under joint Russian-Turkish control, while using Azerbaijan as the executor and Armenia as the reluctant legitimizer. This is all staged to appear as a chaotic multipolar conflict, when in fact it is a carefully engineered power shift with deep geopolitical consequences.
Russia is deliberately projecting an image of disengagement and loss of influence in Armenia. It has withdrawn its peacekeepers from Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), allowed Baku to act unilaterally, and publicly tolerated the anti-Russian rhetoric of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Russian officials openly blame Armenia for the collapse of bilateral relations and label the current government as untrustworthy. This generates the perception among Armenians that Russia has “abandoned” them and gives the West the illusion that Russia is losing ground in the region. In reality, the Kremlin is not retreating — it is simply changing tactics. Rather than directly pressuring Armenia, it has delegated the task of coercion to Azerbaijan and Turkey. The Zangezur Corridor — which would connect Azerbaijan to its exclave Nakhchivan through southern Armenia — is a top strategic priority for Moscow, as it offers a land route to Iran that bypasses Georgia and Western-controlled Black Sea transit points. To avoid domestic and international backlash, Russia lets its partners do the heavy lifting while appearing passive.
Azerbaijan plays the role of the aggressive but supposedly independent actor. President Ilham Aliyev’s administration issues direct threats toward Armenia, insisting the corridor will be opened either diplomatically or through military force. At the same time, Baku publicly criticizes Moscow and presents itself as geopolitically autonomous — cultivating ties with Israel, NATO, and even engaging in tactical diplomacy with the EU. Meanwhile, high-profile events such as the arrests of pro-Russian journalists in Baku, the blocking of Russian media channels, and the freezing of certain Russian-linked assets paint a picture of deteriorating Russian-Azerbaijani relations. In response, Moscow initiates legal action against Azerbaijani businessmen, opens investigations into illicit finance operations, and restricts diplomatic channels. However, these are performative clashes. Behind the scenes, Baku remains in close coordination with Russian intelligence and border agencies. Strategic infrastructure negotiations continue uninterrupted, especially regarding the Zangezur Corridor. The tension is staged to conceal the depth of cooperation.
Turkey serves as the facilitator and integrator of the plan. Publicly, Ankara is the political and military patron of Baku, encouraging pressure on Armenia and supporting the concept of a corridor. Simultaneously, Turkey is in continuous diplomatic talks with Russia and Iran, presenting itself as a responsible stabilizing force. Turkey’s deeper objective is to secure a pan-Turkic logistical arc from Istanbul to Central Asia through Nakhchivan and southern Armenia, while allowing Russia to plug into this network via Iranian access points. Turkey positions itself as a NATO power acting “rationally,” but in reality, it is enabling both Moscow and Baku while consolidating control over future trade routes.
Armenia, meanwhile, is not a passive victim — it is a deliberate actor, playing the role of the cornered and helpless small state. The government in Yerevan, led by Pashinyan, amplifies anti-Russian rhetoric, invites EU observer missions, engages in NATO military drills, and appeals to France and the U.S.
for protection. But beneath this Western-facing posture lies a coordinated internal campaign to prepare Armenian society for strategic surrender. The administration intentionally deepens Armenia’s isolation, fosters a sense of hopelessness, and exaggerates the threat of war — so that, when the demand for the Zangezur Corridor reaches its peak, they can present acquiescence as “the only path to peace.” The corridor will not be “conceded” in war but signed away in a staged atmosphere of existential crisis.
It is precisely within this context that the diplomatic skirmishes between Baku and Moscow unfold. In Azerbaijan, Russian-affiliated media and figures are prosecuted or expelled. In Russia, Azerbaijani economic operators are detained and targeted with criminal investigations. These mutual shows of hostility are not genuine strategic ruptures — they are part of the wider deception. Their purpose is to convince the West that Azerbaijan is drifting away from Russia, and that Moscow is no longer a power player in the region. This narrative is crucial to prevent U.S. or EU intervention as the corridor plan matures.
In summary, this is not a multi-sided conflict but a coordinated geopolitical performance. Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia are executing a shared playbook with distinct roles: Moscow as the strategist, Baku as the enforcer, Ankara as the bridge, and Yerevan as the enabler disguised as a victim. The West, distracted by the war in Ukraine and the Middle East, has failed to grasp the strategic coherence of the operation. The Zangezur Corridor is not the product of war — it is the result of an agreement. Everything else is theater. The enemies are on stage. The partners are behind the curtain.
It is precisely within this context that the diplomatic skirmishes between Baku and Moscow unfold. In Azerbaijan, Russian-affiliated media and figures are prosecuted or expelled. In Russia, Azerbaijani economic operators are detained and targeted with criminal investigations. These mutual shows of hostility are not genuine strategic ruptures — they are part of the wider deception. Their purpose is to convince the West that Azerbaijan is drifting away from Russia, and that Moscow is no longer a power player in the region. This narrative is crucial to prevent U.S. or EU intervention as the corridor plan matures.
In summary, this is not a multi-sided conflict but a coordinated geopolitical performance. Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia are executing a shared playbook with distinct roles: Moscow as the strategist, Baku as the enforcer, Ankara as the bridge, and Yerevan as the enabler disguised as a victim. The West, distracted by the war in Ukraine and the Middle East, has failed to grasp the strategic coherence of the operation. The Zangezur Corridor is not the product of war — it is the result of an agreement. Everything else is theater. The enemies are on stage. The partners are behind the curtain.