Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

“Trump’s Corridor Deal: Genocide Whitewash, Armenia at Risk”

By

By Wally Sarkeesian

Trump’s TRIPP Corridor: Whitewashing Genocide, Burying Section 907, and Turning Armenia Into a Geopolitical Battleground”

Trump has single-handedly whitewashed the ethnic cleansing of Artsakh, buried Section 907 of the U.S. Freedom Support Act, and handed Azerbaijan and Turkey their long-coveted corridor — all under U.S. oversight. Branded as the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP), this isn’t a harmless transit link. It’s a NATO-aligned lifeline connecting Turkey and Israel to Azerbaijan through Armenia’s sovereign territory, deliberately excluding Russia and Iran. Both powers will see it as a provocation they cannot ignore, cutting across their vital North–South trade route.

For Trump, it’s a cheap geopolitical stunt — a photo op to score points and pressure Moscow over Ukraine. For Armenia, it’s a high-risk gamble that could turn the country into a battlefield in the looming U.S.–Russia–Iran confrontation. And the agreement’s talk of “building trust” between Armenia and Azerbaijan? That’s pure cynicism, when one side has committed blockade, invasion, and genocide without consequence.

“Armenia’s ‘Peace’ Deal: A Paper Shield That Paves the Way for Azerbaijan’s Final Conquest”

By

By Karnig Kerkonian

A PAPER SHIELD. #Armenia just published the “peace” agreement initialed with Azerbaijan in Washington. Unfortunately, it will not halt an already-emboldened #Azerbaijan from completing its conquest of Armenia. You see, the real story is what’s not in the text. There is no mention of #NagornoKarabakh, no sign of Armenian #POWs, no word of international security guarantees, and no Azerbaijani withdrawal from Armenian territory. This is the gift of Armenia’s appeasement-based approach to peace. “If we just lower the bar on Artsakh,” the Armenian PM said in April 2022, “the international community will help us.” Three years on, he’s not even permitted to use the word “Artsakh”. That said, the “peace” treaty does a few things really well. It normalizes Azerbaijan’s ongoing (and multiple) military aggressions against Armenia and #Artsakh. It whitewashes Baku’s ongoing genocidal intent (remember the exterminator in the Hazmat suit, the blockade and ethnic cleansing, the ongoing destruction of Armenian cultural heritage, the “Western Azerbaijan” narrative). And it lays bare Armenia in a hyper-militarized South Caucasus (no foreign troops in Armenia, while Azerbaijan surely will ask Turkey and Israel to take their weapons, logistics and foreign intelligence and just leave). How can this go wrong for Armenia? The ridiculous double-speak in the text is almost as blatant as the spinsters trying to put lipstick on this pig. For example, the new partners in “peace” claim to champion consistency with international law in the text—yet, in the very same breath, they agree to withdraw the international cases against Azerbaijan and kill enforcement of the #ICJ decisions which hold Baku in violation of international law. Yup, that makes sense. Sadly, the world has been here before. Hitler signed the Munich Treaty promising peace—right before engulfing Europe in war and genocide, slaughtering millions of human beings. That “peace” treaty polled quite well in Europe in 1938—until, of course, it enabled the execution of the Holocaust. The lesson? Appeasement does not work, particularly where there is genocidal intent. History really is a tough teacher. And I am afraid that, here too, history will prove more dispositive as to what comes next than this paper shield ever will.

Nobel Peace Prize for Trump Road for Azerbaijan; Nothing for Armenia

By

By Harut Sassounian

As expected, Pres. Donald Trump turned the White House Summit for “peace” in the Caucasus into a farcical show, constantly engaging in self-flattery, taking credit for things he had not done, blaming Pres. Biden, and frequently straying from the subject of the meeting.

Trump had only one purpose for organizing this White House event: to secure the Nobel Peace Prize for allegedly brokering peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan, claiming it was something no one else could achieve in 35 years.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump shamelessly glorified himself: “Many leaders have tried to end the War, with no success, until now, thanks to ‘TRUMP.’” He also took credit for settling several other conflicts in which he had zero involvement. He conveniently failed to mention his arrogant campaign promise to resolve the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours of taking office.” He has now been President for seven months, yet the war persists.

Cunningly, both Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Pres. Ilham Aliyev, aware of Trump’s egotistical tendencies, eagerly engaged in groveling behavior. They even offered to sign a joint letter urging the Nobel Committee to award Trump the Peace Prize — a gesture that delighted him.

The serious issue of addressing the disputed transit road from mainland Azerbaijan to its Nakhichevan exclave through Armenia quickly degenerated into farce with the announcement that it would be called “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity” (TRIPP) — yet another example of Trump’s vanity.

The “Peace Treaty” Pashinyan has been touting for months was not signed as announced, but merely initialed during last week’s White House Summit, rendering it a non-binding document. Aliyev has no interest in signing the treaty, knowing that doing so would eliminate his leverage to demand further concessions from Pashinyan, who has thus far capitulated to all his demands. Aliyev will delay signing the treaty until Pashinyan fulfills yet another Azeri demand to amend Armenia’s Constitution, a process that will take 10 more months.

Armenians remain unaware of the “Peace Treaty’s” terms. It is reportedly set for release on August 11. We will then discover what kind of concessions Pashinyan has made to Azerbaijan. He is also violating the pledge he made in 2018 to a large crowd in Yerevan’s Republic Square that he would not sign any agreement without first securing their approval.

Pashinyan has deceived the Armenian public by claiming he is delivering peace to Armenia — hoping that such a promise will help him retain his seat after next year’s parliamentary elections. For Aliyev, this so-called “Peace Treaty” is merely a piece of paper he can violate at will after signing. Should Azerbaijan attack Armenia, neither Eastern nor Western powers will intervene. The Armenian public should not vainly expect the U.S. government to send troops to defend Armenia’s borders. The memorandum signed last Friday makes clear that this is strictly a commercial, not military, arrangement.

There are numerous problems with Pashinyan’s contradictory positions. Months ago, when an Armenian journalist asked if he would consider granting management of the transit road to an international organization, he categorically rejected the idea. Yet, he just handed the transit road road foeign entity.

Here is another broken promise. A few months ago, when Aliyev demanded that Armenia agree to disband OSCE’s Minsk Group of mediators, Pashinyan said he would do so upon signing the “Peace Treaty.” Yet, last Friday Pashinyan signed the White House Memorandum calling for the dissolution of the Minsk Group — even though Aliyev had not signed the treaty.

More ominously, the initialed “Peace Treaty” contains no provision for the release of Armenian hostages held in Baku, withdrawal of Azeri troops from Armenia’s territory occupied since 2021, or the right of return for 120,000 displaced Artsakh Armenians, despite the International Criminal Court’s ruling for their repatriation. This is a reward for Aliyev’s criminal behavior. Until Azerbaijan reverses course on these issues, Pashinyan should have refused to initial or sign the treaty. I hope he is not relying on promises from Trump, who refused to recognize the Armenian Genocide on April 24 — even though Congress and Pres. Biden had recognized it.

In 2020, Armenia agreed to provide Azerbaijan with a transit road through its territory in exchange for the Lachin Corridor linking Artsakh to Armenia. Since then, Azerbaijan has occupied Artsakh and the Lachin Corridor, eliminating Armenia’s obligation to uphold the ceasefire agreement. This transit link is the “Turan Road,” the Century-old dream of the Turkic world, connecting Turkey and Azerbaijan to the Turkic republics of Central Asia. Regrettably, these issues appear to matter little to Pashinyan, who is more focused on retaining his seat than protecting Armenia’s interests.

One of the major gains for Azerbaijan during last Friday’s White House ceremony was the suspension of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act, passed by Congress in 1992, which prohibited direct U.S. government assistance to Azerbaijan. Now Azerbaijan is able to purchase billions of dollars’ worth of advanced U.S. weapons that could be used against Armenia. How does that promote peace?

No details were provided to the public about U.S. management of the transit road. Why was it granted for 99 years with an option to extend another 99 years — effectively handing it to the U.S. government indefinitely, at the expense of Armenia’s sovereignty? It is also unclear what benefit Armenia stands to gain from the billions of dollars’ worth of goods transiting its territory.

For years, Pashinyan objected to Aliyev’s demand for a “corridor” instead of a road through Armenia. A corridor implies that the transit road would be considered Azeri territory. Yet, when Pres. Trump spoke at the White House Summit, he referred to the road as a “corridor.” Furthermore, the agreement signed by the three leaders includes the problematic term “unimpeded” transit. What exactly does “unimpeded entail? Does it mean Armenia has no right to inspect the passports and luggage of those crossing into its territory from Azerbaijan?

Here is the bottom line of the White House Summit: Trump may get his Nobel Peace Prize; Aliyev, Erdogan, and the Turkic World will secure their transit through Armenia; meanwhile Armenia will outsource its sovereign territory and alienate Iran, its only regional ally.

Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan: Armenia Is Being Palestinianized — And Our Leaders Are Complicit

By

By Wally Sarkeesian

Since 2020, I warned that talk of “enclaves” would turn Armenia into another Palestine—surrounded on all sides, roads and borders in enemy hands. Now, village after village in Tavush is gone, and Syunik faces dismemberment through a so-called “corridor.” This is not diplomacy—it is national suicide.

Our homeland is being carved into a pawn for foreign powers, a Pan-Turkic pipeline, a hub for drugs and money laundering, and a testing ground for cultural and spiritual sabotage. The Armenian Apostolic Church is under attack, our sovereignty is dissolving, and the sellout government smiles as it signs our death warrant.

This is no longer politics. This is a civilizational war. There is no middle ground—either the traitors fall, or Armenia does.

“The U.S. is in a Silent Civil War”

By

By Wally Sarkeesian

Deep cultural and political polarization

  • Red vs. Blue, rural vs. urban, progressive vs. conservative.
  • Increasing hostility online and offline.
  • People no longer just disagree — they distrust and dehumanize each other.

Media echo chambers

  • People live in different “information realities.”
  • Social media amplifies conflict and outrage.
  • Algorithms push division for profit.

Institutional breakdown or mistrust

  • Faith in government, elections, courts, police, and media is at historic lows.
  • Both sides believe the other is “breaking the system.”

Nonviolent conflict turning personal

  • Families divided.
  • Violence in protests.
  • Political violence (like Jan. 6 or attacks on judges) is viewed as justifiable by some.

Not in the traditional sense of North vs South or organized militias

  • A society fractured along ideological lines
  • Where peaceful coexistence is constantly strained
  • And where people see their fellow citizens as enemies…

Then yes, you could call it a “cold” or “silent” civil war.

Impact of USDA’s Data Demand on CalFresh Recipients

By

By Wally Sarkeesian

Orange County, Calif. (July 29, 2025) — The County of Orange Social Services Agency (SSA) continues to monitor changes to how the federal government obtains our clients’ data. 

Per reports from CalMatters, NPR, KTLA and the LA Times, the state of California has sued to challenge the transfer of data of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients. SNAP — known as CalFresh in California — helps low-income families put food on their tables.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has demanded data be turned over by July 30, to include: 

  • Social Security Numbers
  • Dates of Birth
  • Addresses
  • Immigration statuses
  • Purchase histories

While various outlets have reported that this unprecedent ask is another part of the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts, regulations prohibit undocumented immigrants from receiving CalFresh. Families with mixed immigration statuses, however, may receive benefits, e.g., an undocumented mother may apply for CalFresh on behalf of her child, who is an American citizen.

As with Medi-Cal, our agency only uses client personal information to determine eligibility for CalFresh, and that information is stored in a state-run database. Again, the County of Orange was not involved in the decision to transfer any client data and we caution clients that disenrolling from benefits will not retroactively remove their personal information from the state-run database.

We acknowledge that this new development could further discourage Orange County residents from applying for and using the benefits they are legally entitled to, which will not just affect our clients. Research shows that CalFresh/SNAP to be one of the most powerful anti-hunger programs, particularly benefiting young children, while injecting $1.54 into the economy for every $1 spent on benefits.

SSA remains committed to serving the most vulnerable in our community, creating a stronger Orange County through supports and services that develop self-sufficiency for our clients.

Understanding America’s Credit Crisis

By

By Wally Sarkeesian

Living Paycheck to Paycheck: The Hidden Cost of America’s Credit Culture

76% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.
This alarming statistic reflects more than just personal spending habits—it exposes the deeper design of an economy built on borrowing, consumerism, and financial misunderstanding.

“In traditional Asian culture, people earn a dollar and spend twenty cents.
In traditional American culture, people earn a dollar and spend two.”

How is that even possible?
The answer: credit.

The Illusion of Wealth: America’s Credit Trap

The modern U.S. economy runs on credit. If you make $50,000 a year, you’re often encouraged—not discouraged—to spend $60,000, $70,000, or more. Thanks to credit cards, personal loans, buy-now-pay-later programs, and store financing, Americans regularly live far beyond their actual means.

As your income increases, banks reward you—not with advice or education—but with higher credit limits, more loan offers, and tempting payment plans.

But this isn’t generosity. It’s profit.

Every time you swipe your card or take out a loan, someone earns interest. Your debt fuels someone else’s gains. This is how the system is designed: your overspending sustains economic growth.

The Real Crisis: Financial Illiteracy

What’s even more dangerous than debt is not understanding it. Most people are never taught how credit works, what compound interest means, or how quickly small debts can snowball. They only know this: I want it now. I can pay later.

But when “later” arrives, it comes with a heavy price:

  • Interest charges
  • Overdue fees
  • Anxiety
  • Financial instability

In a culture that glamorizes spending but never teaches budgeting, saving, or investing, it’s no wonder so many Americans are living on the edge.

An Economy Built on Consumption

This isn’t just a personal failing—it’s a systemic design. Roughly 70% of U.S. GDP is driven by consumer spending. The entire economy relies on people continuing to buy, even if it means drowning in debt to do it.

Credit isn’t inherently bad—used wisely, it can fund opportunity, investment, and growth. But without knowledge and discipline, it becomes a trap. And right now, millions are stuck in it.

The Bottom Line

Until we address two core problems—a credit-dependent economy and widespread financial illiteracy—the cycle won’t break. Americans will continue living paycheck to paycheck, fueling a system that enriches others while impoverishing themselves.

The solution isn’t just to earn more.
It’s to learn more.

Because in today’s economy, what you don’t know about money can cost you far more than you think.


“Nikol Pashinyan Joins the Ranks of 7 World Leaders Accused of Betrayal, Surrender, and Controversial Concessions”

By

By Wally Sarkeesian

1. Vidkun Quisling – Norway

During World War II, Quisling collaborated with Nazi Germany and helped facilitate the German occupation of Norway. After the war, he was executed for high treason. His name became synonymous with “traitor” across Europe.

2. Wang Jingwei – China

A high-ranking Chinese official who broke away from the main Nationalist government, Wang formed a puppet regime under Japanese occupation in Nanjing during the Second Sino-Japanese War. He is widely regarded as a national traitor in Chinese history.

3. Marshal Philippe Pétain – Vichy France

Once a World War I hero, Pétain became the head of the Vichy government that collaborated with Nazi Germany after France’s defeat in 1940. He was condemned after the war for betraying the French Republic and sentenced to death, later commuted to life imprisonment.

4. Neville Chamberlain – United Kingdom

The British Prime Minister signed the Munich Agreement in 1938, allowing Adolf Hitler to annex the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia. Meant to avoid war, the move is widely seen as appeasement, and many believe it emboldened Hitler, leading directly to WWII.

5. Mikhail Gorbachev – Soviet Union

Gorbachev’s reforms—glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring)—were intended to modernize the Soviet Union but instead accelerated its collapse. While praised abroad, he was heavily criticized at home for presiding over the loss of Soviet territories and influence.

6. Anwar Sadat – Egypt

In 1979, Sadat signed the Camp David Accords, officially recognizing Israel and returning the Sinai Peninsula. While the peace treaty earned him a Nobel Prize, many in the Arab world viewed it as betrayal. He was assassinated in 1981 by extremists within his own military.

7. Nikol Pashinyan – Armenia

Following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan signed a Russian-brokered ceasefire with Azerbaijan, which resulted in Armenia ceding significant territory. Many Armenians accused him of surrender and betrayal, though others argued it prevented greater loss of life and further devastation.

Conclusion:

What one generation sees as betrayal, another may view as a painful but necessary compromise. These leaders faced impossible choices—some acted out of pragmatism, others out of self-interest or delusion. What they all share is the lasting impact of their decisions, and the fierce debates that continue long after their time.

The Myth of Authenticity: Why We’re All Just Playing a Role

By

By Wally Sarkeesian

Authenticity is often praised as the highest virtue in our culture—“Just be yourself,” we’re told. But what if that very idea is a myth? What if no one is ever truly authentic?

In truth, being human means being social, and to be social is to perform. From early childhood, we learn how to adapt, please others, say the right things, and present ourselves in ways that are acceptable or likable. We play roles to fit in, to survive, to be loved. In that sense, we are all actors—constantly shifting our behavior depending on context, company, and circumstance.

Even those who seem effortlessly real or raw are often just skilled at appearing authentic. They’ve learned how to create that impression, how to project sincerity. But make no mistake: they are still performing, still choosing what to show and what to conceal.

The truth is, no one ever says exactly what they’re thinking all the time. We filter ourselves. We calculate. We adjust. The polished version of ourselves that we present to the world is curated, whether consciously or not.

So, when we admire someone for being “authentic,” what we’re often admiring is their ability to act authentic in a way that resonates. But it’s still a performance.

And maybe that’s not a bad thing. Perhaps it’s simply what it means to be human.

From Revolution to Repression Pashinyan Has Reduced Armenians to ‘Toothless, Barking Dogs’

By

By Wally Sarkeesian

Pashinyan’s Rule: A Decade of Decline for Armenia?

Since his emergence on Armenia’s political stage in the late 2000s, Nikol Pashinyan has remained a polarizing figure. Critics argue that under the banner of reform, Pashinyan has systematically dismantled Armenia’s democratic institutions, weakened national sovereignty, and brought the country to the brink of political and cultural crisis.

A Controversial Past

Pashinyan first gained notoriety during the 2008 post-election protests, which resulted in the deaths of 10 people. He was sentenced to seven years in prison for his role in the unrest. Released in 2011 under an amnesty, he re-entered politics and by 2018 led a mass protest movement known as the Velvet Revolution. Though hailed by some as a democratic awakening, others argue the movement consolidated power in Pashinyan’s hands. During the ensuing election, he faced little to no serious competition, raising concerns about the fairness and openness of the democratic process.

Institutional Dismantling

Once in office, Pashinyan began dissolving key governmental institutions, including the Ministry of Diaspora. He pursued legal actions against former presidents and political rivals, often without presenting clear or conclusive evidence. Over time, he reshaped the judiciary by replacing judges and weakening independent legal oversight, leading many to believe Armenia’s legal system had been politically compromised.

The Artsakh Crisis

Perhaps the most devastating chapter of Pashinyan’s tenure came in 2020 with the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Accusations have surfaced that the conflict was mishandled—or even provoked—behind the scenes. The eventual defeat led to Armenia’s forced capitulation and the de facto transfer of Artsakh to Azerbaijan, triggering a mass exodus of ethnic Armenians. While Pashinyan portrayed the outcome as inevitable, critics allege he coordinated with Western powers, including the EU and the United States, to facilitate the handover. To date, the leadership of Artsakh remains imprisoned.

Normalizing with Turkey Amid Historical Denial

In parallel, Pashinyan has pursued controversial normalization talks with Turkey, a nation Armenia has long distrusted due to the unresolved trauma of the Armenian Genocide. Not only did Pashinyan attend President Erdoğan’s inauguration, but his government has also been accused of softening Armenia’s stance on genocide recognition—an act viewed by many as betrayal.

Cracking Down on Church and Civil Society

Domestically, Pashinyan has expanded the power of internal security forces, creating what some liken to a “personal police state” reminiscent of Erdoğan’s Turkey. Opposition leaders, clergy members, and even business owners have been arrested. Most recently, reports have emerged of the state targeting Armenian churches and jailing priests under various pretexts—raising alarm about religious repression in a traditionally devout society.

A Silenced Nation?

Despite mounting dissatisfaction, public protests have yielded little change. Demonstrations have been frequent but largely ineffective. Many Armenians now describe themselves as powerless—reduced to “toothless, barking dogs” in their own homeland, as one critic put it.

Conclusion

Pashinyan’s time in power has been marked by deep polarization, institutional collapse, and national crisis. Whether viewed as a reformer gone astray or a calculated opportunist, his legacy is likely to be one of the most contentious in Armenia’s modern history.