Armenian expert criticizes Pashinyan's peace proposal as contradictory and self-serving

On August 31, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan made headlines with a significant proposal during a press conference: he suggested that Azerbaijan sign the portions of the peace treaty project that have already been agreed upon.

This development has been analyzed in detail by political scientist Suren Surenyants, according to Caliber.Az, who examined Pashinyan's key messages to Armenian media.

Pashinyan's proposal suggests that Azerbaijan and Armenia sign 13 out of the 17 agreed points of the peace treaty now and negotiate the remaining four points later. Surenyants criticized this approach, noting, "Usually, countries that have lost a war try to make the treaty signed with the enemy as inclusive as possible, covering all disputed issues to prevent future conflicts. Pashinyan acts quite the opposite."

According to Surenyants, there are two reasons for Pashinyan’s stance. First, the Prime Minister aims to secure legitimacy for his government ahead of the 2026 parliamentary elections, using even a minimal peace agreement to strengthen his position. Second, Pashinyan's foreign policy failures have left Armenia without substantial support from the West. Withdrawing from the trilateral statement signed on November 9, 2020, involving Russia, without an alternative agreement could lead to renewed conflict — a risk Pashinyan wants to avoid. From this perspective, signing a peace agreement with Azerbaijan might provide a pretext for exiting the Russian-backed document.

Surenyants also pointed out a diplomatic principle: "If not everything is agreed, nothing is agreed." He argued that Pashinyan's proposals contradict this principle, and noted Azerbaijan’s reaction: demanding the withdrawal of the EU monitoring mission from Armenia as it continues to pursue its own agenda.

The political scientist also highlighted Pashinyan’s remarks regarding Russia. The Prime Minister’s statement that it’s impossible to talk to Russia with irony or disdain was perceived by some as pro-Russian, but Surenyants disagrees, noting, “In reality, there’s nothing pro-Russian about it.”

Surenyants recalled his own experiences: "When I said in my interviews that Russia shouldn’t be spoken to with a sneer, many ‘pseudo-Westerners’ in Pashinyan’s circle called me a Russian agent. I wonder if they will call Pashinyan a Russian agent now too."

He further criticized Pashinyan’s inconsistency, as the Prime Minister questioned Russian mediation but also stated that there was no need to withdraw from the November 2020 statement. According to Surenyants, this indicates Pashinyan’s lack of commitment to either Russian or Western mediation.