The issues of a clear, measurable, relevant, substantive and timely adopted strategies of national security and state defense should undoubtedly be among the key issues of the state policy of the Republic of Armenia, taking into account the aggression carried out by Azerbaijan and Turkey against the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Artsakh and the high probability of its continuous manifestation also in future. It is also indisputable that information security, cybersecurity and cyber defense are a necessary and very important component of national security and state defense in the 21st century, and the development and implementation of comprehensive strategic documents in the mentioned areas (including their regular revision and improvement) are indispensable means for the effective management of these areas and for effectively ensuring national security and state defense.

Cyberspace, along with land, air and water, has long been considered by states as a usual domain for warfare, at the same time cyber weapons, along with conventional weapons, have been perceived as alternative means of warfare. The issue of ensuring cybersecurity and cyber defense is today considered around the world as one of the key challenges to international security. The use of cyber weapons during armed conflicts is lawful under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and IHL rules and regulations are applicable to the use of cyber means of warfare. It is not a coincidence that over the past decades states have been paying more and more attention to the issues of cyber defense in the context of ensuring the state defense from external enemies primarily by developing a state strategy and the main directions of state policy in the field of cyber defense.

The Republic of Armenia started undertaking specific measures in the field of informational security and ensuring the formation and development of the so-called electronic society already in the first decade of the 2000s. In 2008-2009 the Government of Armenia adopted a number of strategic documents on cybersecurity. In October 2017 the President of Armenia and the Armenian Government initiated the process of improving the relevant strategic documents in the field and bringing them in line with the challenges of the modern world. In particular, the documents which were regulating the field of cybersecurity lost their force, and parallel to that, in the end of 2017 beginning of 2018, draft strategies on cybersecurity and on ensuring information security and information policy of the RoA were developed. One would think that these documents, which have a strategic importance for the RoA, should have been considered as a priority by the state and, accordingly, should have been improved, finalized and adopted long ago, and should have by now been in the process of implementation. However, the current study leads to sad conclusions: the reality is that since 2017 to the present day there are no strategic documents in the field of information security, cybersecurity and military cyber defense in the Republic of Armenia.

Over the past five years the passivity and inaction of the government bodies in the issues of development of information security, cybersecurity and cyber defense, the development of state policy and the approval and implementation of strategic documents in the mentioned areas are unacceptable, taking into account the pressing security and defense problems that the Republic of Armenia is facing today. The absence of state vision and policy in the field of cybersecurity and military cyber defense, as well as the absence of the relevant strategic documents in the RoA is a dangerous reality in the context of the imperative of effective organization of RoA defense.

The relevance and urgency of the problem is additionally evidenced by the indicators of the Republic of Armenia on ensuring cybersecurity and cyber defense. Thus, according to the data published by the Global Cybersecurity Index for 2020, only three countries among the countries of the region (Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan), namely Kyrgyzstan (49.64), Tajikistan (17.1) and Turkmenistan (no data available) have a lower ranking than the Republic of Armenia. At the same time, according to the National Cybersecurity Index as of 2020, among other countries Armenia ranks 90th with a minimum score of zero for cybersecurity policy development, a minimum score of zero for the analysis of cyberspace threats, a minimum score of zero for cyberspace crisis management, a minimum score of zero for the defense of critical infrastructures and protection of digital services, and a minimum score of zero for the ability to organize military cyber operations. Full material is only available in Armenian.

Since 2002, Azerbaijan has been receiving security assistance from the United States, which is significantly more than the amount received by Armenia. Naturally, such volumes of security assistance received by Azerbaijan are disturbing and dangerous for Armenia, which is regularly subjected to Azerbaijani aggression. Therefore, there is a need to find out and study what kind of security assistance the United States provides to Azerbaijan and against whom this assistance is actually directed. In order to achieve this goal, the waiver of the act prohibiting the provision of assistance to Azerbaijan (Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act), the main purposes for which the United States provides security assistance to Azerbaijan, and the cases of the use of this assistance against Armenia in the past will be examined. Full material is only available in Armenian.

In the present analysis, given the data published by the Statistical Committee of the RA, we study the recent social-economic developments in the economy of the RA. In particular, we consider the cumulative indicator of economic activity of the given month, its sectoral distribution, as well as the dynamics of individual sectors of the economy. We also analyze economic developments in the foreign trade, labour market and fiscal system of the RA. In addition, some aspects of the financial system (inflation, deposits and loans), as well as the behaviour of the exchange rate, are touched upon. Full material is only available in Armenian.

On September 17-19, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi made a historic visit to the Republic of Armenia, becoming the highest-ranking official of the United States to ever visit Armenia. The visit was preceded by the Azerbaijani aggression against the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia, which, however, did not prevent the Speaker of the House of Representatives from making the already planned visit.
In this article, the following questions will be addressed. In particular, why did the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, embark on the visit to Armenia, despite the Azerbaijani aggression? What were the main reasons for visiting Armenia? What messages can be extracted from the statements made by Nancy Pelosi during her visit to Armenia? And why she did not travel to Georgia or Azerbaijan to keep the balance. Full material is available only in Armenian․

In the present analysis, given the data published by the Statistical Committee of the RA, we study the recent social-economic developments in the economy of the RA. In particular, we consider the cumulative indicator of economic activity of the given month, its sectoral distribution, as well as the dynamics of individual sectors of the economy. We also analyze economic developments in the foreign trade, labour market and fiscal system of the RA. In addition, some aspects of the financial system (inflation, deposits and loans), as well as the behaviour of the exchange rate, are touched upon. Full material is only available in Armenian.

The study of indicators and indices published by international organizations allows to address two important problems. First, to assess the performance of the RA in the given period with the help of comprehensive numerical measures, as well as to make intertemporal comparisons in order to understand whether the country moves in the desirable direction. Second, to compare the performance of the RA with other countries to ascertain Armenia’s relative position in the region and Eurasian Economic Union. These results are important, since they help to derive the comprehensive assessment of the economic situation, which is needed both for the public and the private sector. The present analysis is aimed at addressing the foregoing problems. Full material is only available in Armenian.

Azerbaijan's recent aggression has once again demonstrated that this country is not capable of following any reached agreements, especially if they are not backed by superpowers and are not under their supervision. The reaction of the key international actors to recent events reveals that a new military escalation in the region proceeds solely out the interests of the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem and not one of the superpowers is interested in it. Taking into account the latest large-scale military aggression by Azerbaijan against the sovereign borders of Armenia, the "LUYS" Foundation came up with a package of proposals for diplomatic steps.

In the present analysis, given the data published by the Statistical Committee of the RA, we study the recent social-economic developments in the economy of the RA. In particular, we consider the cumulative indicator of economic activity of the given month, its sectoral distribution, as well as the dynamics of individual sectors of the economy. We also analyze economic developments in the foreign trade, labour market and fiscal system of the RA. In addition, some aspects of the financial system (inflation, deposits and loans), as well as the behaviour of the exchange rate, are touched upon. Full material is only available in Armenian.

Recently, an activation of Armenian-American relations has been noticeable with a significant increase of high-level phone calls and meetings. This is not connected to the update of the bilateral agenda or the increase of diplomatic efforts. Such activations of relations were also noticeable in the past and were mostly the result of the American regional interests. This article distinguishes four stages of the activation of Armenian-American relations, the study of three of those highlights general patterns and motives for the activation of relations. Based on the above, an explanation is given for the prerequisites of the emergence of the fourth, currently ongoing stage. Full material is only available in Armenian․

Immediately after the collapse of the USSR, a number of well-known experts argued that democratic regimes would quickly be established in the newly independent states. Later, in the early 2000s, it became clear that a much more complex and unprecedented process was underway - the post-Soviet transformation. The countries appeared in that process differ both in their trajectories and goals. According to this classification, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova belonged to the same group of countries aspiring to the formation of democratic regimes, which were included in the new “EU Eastern Partnership” initiative in 2009 in order to support democratization processes. From the point of view of the establishment of consolidated democratic regimes in post-communist countries, the formation of stable and representative party systems is of exceptional exemplary importance. The realization of this goal is possible through the institutionalization of political parties and party systems, as a result of which these structures are given proper content, and their activities are based on principles and values. This process failed in the post-Soviet transformational countries, hindering the formation of democratic regimes. Moreover, this also happened in three countries (Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine), where "color" revolutions took place, one of the main goals of which was the establishment of democratic regimes. In order to find out why these failures occurred and what are the possibilities for a way out of the situation, the article analyzes the events related to the formation of political parties and party systems in the most comparable countries during the post-Soviet transformation period, Georgia and Ukraine, which were considered in a two-stage format, during “color’’ revolutions and after them. The analysis of the results of these periods shows that these stages do not have significant differences in terms of the process of democratization in the observed countries and, in particular, the institutionalization of political parties and party systems. Full material is only available in Armenian․