Who is the bringer, who is the clarifier: Is the property illegal or not? Vanetsyan's interview.

Arthur Vanetsyan, the chairman of the board of trustees of the Homeland Development Foundation and a major general, discussed recent developments following the Catholicos's statements, the law on the confiscation of illegal property, and the elections in Artsakh in an interview with Aravot.

Mr. Vanetsyan, there are lively developments in the Armenian public agenda, and there is no shortage of significant issues. Considering that you have presented a political statement, what priorities do you see on the public agenda?

At this moment, there are several issues within the public agenda that pose significant long-term risks that are not limited to the moment's conjuncture. I consider it my duty to clearly formulate my views on these topics and to call on the broader public and civil society to be vigilant.

It seems that there is no shortage of issues; which specific issues do you have in mind, and what risks are we talking about?

I suggest looking at the issues I will address from the perspective of national security. I know that for many, the temptation is great to follow the general current and to participate in processes that seem to be driven by 'justice' at first glance, and this is also encouraged by propaganda from all sides. However, I propose looking further ahead, at least for those who consider themselves responsible for the future of our country.

Firstly, regarding the campaign that has been launched against His Holiness the Catholicos. His Holiness has done what is expected from spiritual leaders in the world. The messages of solidarity, humanitarianism, and peace are directed toward creating better societies and a better country. All societies and all governments need such appeals. The campaign that has begun following the Catholicos's well-known statement is clearly directed, moreover, it is overtly the same actors, with similar formulations and the same aggression. Understanding this does not require extensive experience in security systems. But from a national security perspective, this poses a serious issue. All states, all societies, and all governments have borders that must not be crossed. These are red lines, and their violation makes a state vulnerable to external forces and influences. There are institutions that cannot be devalued by a single decree. In fact, it may not even succeed, but for external forces, it creates a fertile environment to operate against our country, and they document all of this very quickly.

I also find it necessary to emphasize that very few people are involved in the organized campaign against the Catholicos and the Church, and they do not reflect the actual sentiments of our people. The noise is greater than reality, but within that noise, it is easy to drown out potential dangers that this campaign carries.

The second issue I would like to address is the law on the confiscation of illegal property. The National Assembly has already adopted this law. What risks do you see in it?

I do not doubt for a moment the sincere and honest motives of many, particularly those from the My Step faction. At the same time, there is a noticeable simplification of ideas, which does not correspond to the depth of the actual problem. And the problem is not only deep but also carries enormous risky potential at any moment. It is nice to say from the podium that what has been taken from the people will be returned to the people. This can bring a very short-term rating for the speaker, also providing unjustified hopes to the audience for a very brief time, while at the same time creating serious and long-term risks for the state.

So, are you not considering the realization of the declared goals realistic, particularly the return of money?

But who is the bringer, who is the clarifier: Is the property illegal or not? What does it mean to 'give it to the people'? These are institutional questions that do not have exhaustive answers, and every mistake will create a new reality. There is a high probability that operating businesses may close, and in that case, we will have reduced job opportunities and new families on the brink of poverty. And what if there is unpredictable capital outflow or if capital 'hides' or avoids operating in a created atmosphere? In our already unstable economic period, is there an assessment of the risk of certain market collapses, for example, in real estate? Are the enormous risks of subjectivity and the possibilities of using the law for political and other purposes taken into account?

The authorities claim that this is an effective tool in the fight against corruption. The most significant anti-corruption efforts in Armenia were actually conducted under my leadership. And I still assert that the uncompromising fight against corruption is one of the main prerequisites for Armenia's modernization. However, this is about competent struggles and systemic perceptions, not populist moves. There is a key question: do we want to operate capital and resources available in various circles under new rules for the development of the state, for the well-being of our citizens, or do we want a show that can sharply decrease economic activity while simultaneously redistributing ownership? Yes, unfortunately, against the backdrop of many honest desires and perceptions, there are people and circles that are waiting for that redistribution.

The next critical issue I consider is the elections held in Artsakh. Artsakh has honorably emerged from this experience; it is a more democratic state than Azerbaijan. At the same time, the upcoming phases remain in a high-risk zone. It is clear that there are forces interested in undermining stability in Artsakh, and they will not calm down with the end of the electoral phase. I do not rule out more distant and more dangerous 'sneaking campaigns.' No epidemic has changed or will change Azerbaijan's perceptions regarding the Artsakh issue, their internal perception of starting military operations at an opportune moment. In this regard, Azerbaijan is in a phase of 'strategic patience.' The outcome of this phase depends on how effectively each side will use the given timeframe.

When congratulating the newly elected president of Artsakh, you called on political forces for constructive dialogue.

Yes, the most important issues for Artsakh are internal solidarity, stability, raising the level of justice, and making Artsakh recognizable. This is not about being recognized as a state, but about alleviating forced isolation, regarding new opportunities for integration into the larger world—by any means—education, sports, culture, festivals, conferences, etc. In this direction, my founded Homeland Development Foundation is ready for the implementation of large and long-term projects. At this stage, it is extremely important for Armenia to establish internal solidarity and to completely eliminate internal barriers; unfortunately, I do not see such trends (as evidenced by the organized campaign against the Catholicos). Especially regarding the Artsakh issue, restoring reliable relations with Russia is of paramount importance. Unfortunately, there are visible issues here as well.