Armenian roguery or renunciation of territorial claims? “You will know them by their fruits”

Statements dictated by a correct understanding of the current political situation and one's place in the universe always make a good impression on others.

On February 1, the Armenian prime minister demonstrated state wisdom, certain foresight and ability to make correct conclusions by comparing the content of the Declaration of Independence of Armenia with the geographical map of the region. And the matter was as follows.

Nikol Pashinyan, in an interview with Public Radio, urged to consider the provisions of the Declaration of Independence from the perspective of neighbouring countries, and expressed the opinion that if the declaration is preserved, "we will never achieve peace." "If Armenia's state policy is based on the Declaration of Independence, the reunification of Karabakh and Armenia, we will have war and never peace," Pashinyan said.

If this is not a tactical manoeuvre, not another trick, not an attempt to stall for time in the spirit of "something will happen", then the fact is quite encouraging and even strengthens the idea that we have done everything correctly.

In general, the lesson seems to have been learned, and a part of the Armenian elite is beginning to understand that the absence of territorial claims to neighbours, if not guaranteeing complete happiness, at least protects from misfortune and shields from trouble.

But is the Armenian society ready for this? Do the "broad masses" of people in Armenia agree to give up the ideas of "miatsum" (unification), to forget about Karabakh, Javakheti and what they call "Western Armenia"? Here I have some doubts, if only because there are, have been and will always be dissatisfied, and these dissatisfied people will certainly be nourished by both the Armenian Diaspora and its patrons.

At least the same France, the essence of whose policy is a simple thesis: "the worse Armenia will be, the tighter it will cling to us". And it is stupid and senseless to accuse France of foul play; all countries act solely on the basis of their own interests, considering other countries either as fodder or as a tool in the game against their geopolitical rival. And France is just one example.

Meanwhile, the Armenian National Committee of America, the same ANCA, organized a briefing on Capitol Hill, during which the "former ombudsman" of the defunct puppet entity Gegham Stepanyan, and the same "former Minister of State" Artak Beglaryan wrung their hands and whined very loudly about "ethnic cleansing", "rights of return", "they are evil", "here are two bottles of cognac for you".

This resonated with House member Mr. Brad Sherman, who said that "we are here to demand the right of safe return of "Artsakh refugees" to their homes, homes that in many cases have been occupied by their families for hundreds and hundreds of years," and then called for enforcement of the 907th Amendment restrictions on U.S. aid to Azerbaijan and the imposition of sanctions against Baku.

His colleague James Costa even promised to provide humanitarian aid, assuring Stepanian and Beglaryan that the issue was already under consideration.

So, society in Armenia is split. The most sensible part, of course, understands the perniciousness of the ideas of "miatsum", if only because the result is obvious: if they had not expelled Azerbaijanis from Armenia, if they had not looked at Karabakh, they would have had a good trump card.

But in the end, everything was thrown on the altar of territorial claims. What are we left with? Closed borders, exclusion from participation in all international infrastructure projects, and what is no less important - distrust of neighbours. And it is trust that erases borders, revitalizes trade, expands horizons and connects to international infrastructure projects. Revanchists, on the contrary, still dream of "return to Karabakh", six Turkish vilayets (provinces), sanctions against Azerbaijan and "Armenia from sea to sea".

This is not how trust is gained, I would even suggest that Armenia, in addition to mandatory amendments to the Constitution, introduce into the criminal code an article on criminal liability for calls for violent or non-violent changes in borders in the region. In general, there should be a time limit for voicing territorial claims. This will serve as good proof of peacefulness and will lay a solid foundation for the development of bilateral relations.

It's crucial to understand that constitutional amendments and laws are only as powerful as the force that backs them up. This is especially true for international treaties. The harsh reality of the world we live in shows us this every day.