E-channel has posted an analyses of March 1 events. There are a couple of key points in the analyses, which I want to draw your attention to:
- Actually, in the silent, uncompromising psychological struggle conducted between the authorities and fundamental opposition on February 20-29, the nerves of the authorities were the first to give out, on which the whole strategy of the opposition had been built.
- The authorities did not notice  the appeal of Ter-Petrossian towards the international public, according to which he was giving a ten-day period to Western democracies in order to define the future of Armenia.  Therefore, he had already defined a ten-day period for the movement led by him, which could be hardly interpreted as anything but a confession of actual failure.
- Actually, no facts or irrefutable proofs have been presented to date, confirming the statement or justification of the authorities that on March 1 the opposition was going to start wide-scope actions of protest, full of provocations. To date, the only justification has been the statement of law enforcement bodies, claiming that the disorders near the embassy of France after the noon were those very provocations, planned in advance. If it was really like that, it turns out that the measures of cleaning the Freedom Square were completely useless. Moreover, it was a most serious tactical blunder because with that the law enforcement bodies have instilled the opposition with new charges and pretexts, contributing further to heating up the atmosphere.
- Actually, if the blunder of the authorities were related to the measures taken at the Freedom square, the serious mistake of the opposition was not predicting the consequences of the spontaneous (according to them) gathering near the embassy to France. Taking into account the fact that a part of the members of Yerkrapah Volunteers union and almost the whole Trial of Spirit organization were with them, in case of demonstrating sufficient organizational skills, it would, perhaps, be possible and necessary to suppress or isolate the active participants of disorders, with the help of the above-mentioned resources. It did not happen, and it allowed the authorities to develop and, with the help of the further preliminary investigation, to support the approach that the disorders had been organized by one center. And it became a basis for presenting it as a coup d’Etat – that is, a danger immediately threatening the constitutional order.
The author of the analyses also suggests a very valid topic for discussion: