Armenian PM’s self-portrayal under scrutiny The courage to capitulate

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has a curious way of describing his leadership. One can almost picture him casting himself as a figure from fiction, torn between grandiose notions of heroism and the day-to-day routine of office. But is he the steadfast official, fulfilling his duties with a sense of obligatory “heroism,” or the self-styled visionary detached from the reality around him?

This isn’t just a rhetorical question. Pashinyan himself provided the latest example with a statement that raised eyebrows. Speaking recently in Armenia’s parliament, he admitted that at the time of signing the Trilateral Statement, he wasn’t concerned with the views of his colleagues present at the event. This claim, however, only serves to reinforce the sense of a leader who is either playing a role or simply out of step with those around him.

"On November 9, 2020, many of my colleagues were present in my office at that moment. I said, 'I am not interested in anyone's opinion right now; I am taking responsibility, and I will sign this statement.' And I believe I made the right choice. The question is, why did I do it," Pashinyan said. According to him, there are moments when "a person must take responsibility upon themselves."

Oh, really! Pashinyan, of course, has long established himself as a specialist in the art of backtracking and changing his stance mid-air, but this time he has truly outdone himself. There is no other way to describe his attempt to present his personal and Armenia's collective military-political fiasco as a display of courage, heroism, insight, and wisdom. In doing so, he clearly banks on the incredibly short memory of those who have followed, and continue to follow, the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

This calculation, unsurprisingly, did not pay off. Not much time has passed, and everyone still remembers that Pashinyan didn’t even have the resolve to appear on camera when signing the Trilateral Statement on the night of November 9–10, 2020. Whether he was at the table, on it, or under it at the moment of signing remains unknown. But if Pashinyan considers his cowardly absence from the camera during the signing of such an important document as an example of taking responsibility, that's like claiming, "the bravest act is to vanish when duty calls."

In fact, the current Armenian Foreign Minister, Ararat Mirzoyan, can tell the story of how Pashinyan hid after signing the Trilateral Statement. At that time, an outraged crowd vented its anger on the then-Speaker of the National Assembly, beating him until he suffered a concussion. Whether this act of violence was part of Pashinyan’s plan, as he now attempts to portray his flight as almost heroic, remains unclear. But we do remember that Nikol Vovayevich, who had carried out a “strategic retreat” — or, more simply, fled from his residence — complained about the aftermath of the angry crowd's visit. He lamented that his residence had been robbed of computers, watches, perfumes, driver's licenses, and other items. But where was he, the one so "decisive" in making important decisions, when the group of citizens broke into the residence seeking to speak with the "capitulator"? Pashinyan chose not to elaborate.

Moreover, we remember how Pashinyan explained the necessity of signing the Trilateral Statement four years ago. At that time, he stated that it was a forced measure, as there were not enough combat-ready forces to resist the Azerbaijani army. But this was not the only reason behind Pashinyan's decision to sign the act of capitulation.

“Had we lost these cities (Khankendi, Aghdara - Ed.), our defensive positions would have been surrounded by the enemy. More than 20,000 soldiers and officers would have been trapped with the prospect of death or capture,” he publicly and loudly admitted four years ago. And now, as we can see, the Armenian Prime Minister is trying to present his military-political collapse in a new light, almost in heroic terms.

The truth is that Pashinyan bears personal responsibility for the start, course, and outcome of the 44-day war. He provoked it through a series of statements and actions, including his declaration in Khankendi that "Karabakh is Armenia, and that's it," drunken dances in the Jidir Duzu plain, and the escalation of clashes on the Tovuz section of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. He also, it should be noted, forced Azerbaijan to launch an anti-terrorist operation in the Karabakh region.

Moreover, even after signing the Trilateral Statement, Armenia continued to provide financial and military support to the separatist regime in Karabakh, which forced official Baku to take drastic measures. Following this, we witnessed how Pashinyan suddenly became a staunch advocate of the principle of territorial integrity. It wouldn't be surprising if he tries to present this shift in his stance as an example of "principled" decision-making or even "heroism."