What is happening in the Armenian reality in this period completely fits into the domain of the so-called collaborationism, of course, with a few reservations. Let's try to clarify what was said with a few observations. In short, collaborationism has historically been about serving the interests of a foreign power within one's own country through policies that contribute to that power's goals. Its most dangerous manifestation begins when external demands are presented as the only possible way to develop one's own state, and the concessions resulting from them as an inevitable necessity. That transition usually doesn't happen overnight. It requires a change in political language, a reshaping of public perceptions, a revision of national goals and, ultimately, an adaptation of the state system to new realities. In today's political reality of Armenia, this issue should be considered from several directions: peace agenda, constitutional changes, reinterpretation of national identity and historical memory, as well as internal contradictions. � deepening. Each of these processes is the subject of separate discussion, but their interconnectedness requires a more serious examination. doesn't foreign policy accommodation turn into state thinking and domestic politics? � transformation. Historical examples of collaborationist practices often repeat the same mechanism: they convince the public that there is no alternative, they present former goals as the cause of current problems, and resistance as the cause of peace. A threat to stability. External demands gradually receive internal political justification, and their implementation becomes the responsibility of the local government. In this way, external pressure turns into domestic policy, and concession into a state decision. New public agendas can also play a special role in this way. Real contradictions sometimes turn into a general political struggle, focusing public attention on the search for internal enemies. Disputes over the church, historical memory, education or opposition can overshadow the discussion of the content of external arrangements, mutual obligations and real guarantees of security. Therefore, it is important to study not only the issues that the government brings to the public agenda, but also the issues that are pushed out of public attention in the process. In the case of Armenia, the key issue is the price of peace. Peace is a state interest when it strengthens security, ensures the mutual obligations of the parties and expands the possibilities of the country to act independently. But when, in the name of peace, the possibilities to determine one's own national goals, to preserve historical memory or to independently assess external demands are limited, a change in the content of statehood occurs. It is a danger. The problem is, what place is reserved for Armenia, as a state with independent political will, in the established model of peace? The judgment about collaborationism cannot be based only on political statements or individual concessions. It is necessary to find out: who sets the requirements, what does Armenia get, how controllable are the obligations of the other side, and whether the adopted decisions increase or decrease the country's sovereignty. However, the study of these issues should go beyond the scope of individual decisions and address their general direction as well: what kind of state is formed as a result of these decisions, and whose strategic interests does it gradually lead to? Extinguishing. When these processes are considered together, a deeper danger emerges: Armenian statehood may gradually adapt to a function that no longer derives from the national goals of the Armenian people. The strengthening of external hegemony historically did not always begin with the formal abolition of statehood. Often, the content with which the people perceive their own state, national interest and the future has changed first. A state can retain its flag, borders, government and international recognition, while losing the ability to independently determine the direction of its own development. Nikol's policy should be examined from this point of view. In the event that the fundamental concepts of statehood are revised in the name of peace, constitutional changes are connected with the new logic of foreign relations, and the protection of national identity and historical memory Unity is presented as a burden that hinders the future, a fundamental question arises: for whose future is Armenia being rebuilt? If the country's territory, communications and political decisions are gradually adapted to the strategic plans of others, and the historical and national goals of the Armenian people are pushed out of the center of state policy, then we are dealing with with the dangerous transformation of the content of statehood. The danger of turning into a living space is precisely this: Armenia can maintain the external forms of statehood, but gradually lose its historical mission and right of strategic initiative in its own territory. The country can be considered not as a state pursuing independent national goals, but as a space necessary for the implementation of regional communications, geopolitical agreements and plans of foreign forces. �. In that case, the value of Armenia will be determined not so much by the will and national interests of the Armenian people, but by the function assigned to it by others. The key questioning of Nikol Pashinyan's policy is thus much deeper than the assessment of individual concessions or agreements. Does Armenia maintain the status of a national state that determines its own destiny, or does it gradually turn into a living space serving the strategic interests of others under the conditions of formal sovereignty? An area where state institutions continue to operate, but the country's development direction, national priorities and future boundaries are determined by the logic of adapting to external demands. This is the main question of the investigation carried out in the footsteps of collaborationism: not only what concessions Armenia makes, but also what the Armenian statehood turns into as a result of the cumulative consequences of these concessions, and whether the Armenian people continue to Is he a subject that determines the fate of his country or is he gradually becoming a population of the territory being reshaped by the plans of others?