The 2026 Annual Threat Assessment report, declassified by the Office of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, shows how Washington evaluates developments in the South Caucasus. This was stated by Doctor of Law and Professor Gevorg Danielyan while commenting on the report’s main points.
The logic of “dry calculations”
According to Danielyan, the document is based on “dry calculations” and lacks proportionate legal assessments. In his view, this reflects the declining role of international law.
Special attention in the report is given to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s demand to change Armenia’s Constitution. The U.S. document notes that obstacles still remain on the path to a peace agreement, and fulfilling that demand would require a referendum whose outcome is not guaranteed.
Danielyan stresses that the United States is concerned not because such a demand could undermine Armenia’s sovereignty. The concern is that the referendum may not take place or may fail to produce the required result.
A referendum as a political and legal risk
He reminds that under Armenia’s current political conditions, it is extremely difficult to secure the turnout threshold needed for a referendum.
As an example, he points to the 2023 Yerevan City Council election, where turnout was only 28.4 percent. This shows how difficult it is to ensure the required participation level even in regular elections.
According to the professor, the demand to amend the Constitution on this basis could become an insurmountable obstacle. More than that, he describes it as “a road leading to a dead end.”
If the referendum fails, a dangerous legal situation may emerge. In that case, Armenia could effectively validate accusations of territorial claims, along with the negative consequences that would follow.
The Declaration of Independence and its legal meaning
The professor also addresses discussions around the Declaration of Independence and highlights two key points.
First, the declaration does not contain territorial claims. It refers to the right of peoples to self-determination, which is a fundamental principle of international law.
Second, the preamble of the Constitution is based not on all provisions of the declaration, but on the fundamental principles of statehood and national goals enshrined in it.
Little time remains to revise the approach
Danielyan also questions whether revising voter lists can solve the problem. He emphasizes that such steps are unlikely to be effective.
In his view, the current approach must be seriously reconsidered. The situation can still be corrected, but time is limited.