1. Problems with the history part. The very long segment on the history of Armenia and the Armenian people is very problematic.
- It is non-critical toward many institutions/events /periods that should be looked at critically and too biased against others that should be looked at more objectively.
- There are many institutions/events/periods that are relevant to the issues that are discussed that are altogether ignored.
- There are many major factors that explain the dynamics in Armenian history and the changes that have occurred throughout, factors that are relevant to the discussion on hand, that have not been considered.
- The citation of sources is too arbitrary and haphazard.
This work produced bad history and bad histories cannot lead to proper conclusions.
2. Problems with the arguments: There are too many problems with the arguments presented in the text to enumerate here. Some salient examples follow:
- The text argues that we have not been assimilated when we have become a Diaspora. History shows, and present trends indicate, that in fact we have been assimilated, slowly in some places and times, faster in others.
- The text argues that independence has always come to Armenia as a result of collapse of empires. That is true only in one case—the First Republic—but not historically or in the case of the Third Republic. The least one has to recognize is that Armenians had a lot to do with the weakening of those empires. That is particularly true of the birth of the Third Republic.
- The text opines that Armenia does not need to have the Nagorno Karabakh conflict resolved in order to become a successful and ideal state. The last 30 years have shown that this thinking and policies based on it are not valid.
3. Problems with assumptions underlying arguments: There are fundamental assumptions underlying the analysis and proposed program in the work that are wrong and that would raise doubts about the feasibility or implantability the proposed program. The work assumes that
- We are today the same Armenians as Armenians were a 100, 500, 1000 or 2000 years ago. While there are some areas of continuity throughout and paradigmatic behavioral patterns, too much has changed in our circumstances and the circumstances surrounding us to be able to build a structure on that assumption.
- All Armenians have been and are today the same as all others, that differences in class and cast have not produced different behaviors and often conflicting interests.
- Being Armenian means the same thing for Armenians living in Armenia and those living elsewhere.
- It is possible to build what the text proposes without assuring a viable degree of independence.
- It is possible to build what the text proposes, essentially a superstructure, without first building a solid foundation, an infrastructure. What we see in the text is the substitution of an infrastructure with ostensible “family” and other values assumed historically present in our genes/culture.
Here too it is possible to continue the listing.
I am cognizant of the herculean labor that has gone into the writing and production of this work and I appreciate the underlying concerns. May I also comment on the excellent translation into English of the Russian text.
