Armenia's foreign policy agenda is entirely more than ever. One follows the other and parallel meetings in the western and eastern parts of the world, the center of which is the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, naturally in the context of the changes in the regional realities. However, this activity, which is obvious even to the naked eye, is not reflected in the country's domestic political life. If we do not count the representatives of the country's government, who are creating a conversation about what is happening on the foreign political front inside the country, then no action is being taken from the opposite camp, the opposition.

Moreover, if we try to formulate the situation prevailing in the opposition field, then at the moment, instead of the opposition, we only have an opponent. The opposition, by the way, does not hide this way of working, does not hide its reasons. It was announced at the highest level that the authorities were left alone in the case of the expected "capitulation." In other words, from the beginning, the current processes were evaluated only with a negative result. Moreover, it was decided to leave the field, depriving the government of the opportunity to maneuver at the expense of the opposition. This is not an analysis but a combination of the public speech and actions of the central figures of the resistance. The first president's initiative and subsequent interview responses from the titular opposition exposed this modus operandi.

Let's note that the ongoing, rather complex, multi-layered process has a negative result from the beginning. How do you convince the opposition that the opposition field is theirs to the extent that they can leave it whenever they want and for as long as they want, and, in the same way, when they want, return there? The political field is conventionally divided into two poles; it is one whole with many layers. Therefore, when you leave what you think is only your "trench," you go to the field altogether. Moreover, when you are not in that field at a critical moment, then in a calmer situation, your presence also becomes unnecessary.

At the same time, however, since there is a natural need for opposition, some of the assumed functions of the resistance begin to manifest, without political consistency, exclusively in the form of criticism, publicity, countless interviews, and Facebook statuses, in short, by the opposition. The opposition, unlike organized opposition activity, knows no boundaries; many people can engage in it and engage in it freely without assuming political responsibility for speech. What is described is precisely what is happening in Armenia these days.

It is clear, of course, by what calculation the title-winning opposition put themselves out of the game at this critical stage. They believe the game will have a bad ending and does not want to be responsible or associated with it in any way, even partially. It is understandable but not acceptable if we consider that the opposition finds his exit from the game purely temporary, promising to return after a bad ending and "reign on the ruins." This pessimistic scenario can be somewhat explained if we consider that the opposition tried several times to stay in the game, but each time that game ended with rather sad results. And now, instead of modernizing the way of working, it has been decided to leave the game altogether.

One or more of the political actors in these crucial processes decided not to take any political responsibility, leaving only the opposition from the steps reminiscent of their political activity and that too at a fragile, disorganized level so as not to forget about them altogether.

In the context of the ongoing foreign political ferment, we have a long-term political vacuum if we consider both the positive and negative results. In the case of an optimistic scenario, it turns out that it is possible without opposition. Moreover, it does not seem wrong; in a pessimistic scheme, it does not matter who will rule over the ruins. This is if we consider the situation exclusively in two very extreme methods. The reality, as history shows, is in the middle. Most likely, the game will end with neither very good nor bad results, some intermediate results will be recorded, and the game will continue again. In general, subjects who perceive politics, whether internal or external, are doomed to failure, not understanding that the political struggle is an ongoing, unending process. Once out of the game, it isn't easy to return.