Armenian separatists gathering at Yerablur Revanchism under Pashinyan’s nose

Armenian media have spread reports of another provocative act by the remaining members of the Karabakh junta. Samvel Shahramanyan, the former leader of the now-defunct separatist entity in Karabakh, alongside the so-called "Abbot of Dadivank" (Khudavang) and a number of other remnants, visited the Yerablur military pantheon to honour those who died “for the liberation of Shusha” in 1992.

For context, on the night of 7-8 May 1992, the Armenian Armed Forces seized the city of Shusha — an ancient cultural and historical centre of Azerbaijan. As a result, more than 24,000 people became victims of ethnic cleansing and were forced into displacement.

The liberation of Shusha from Armenian occupation marked the culmination of the 44-day war in Karabakh in 2020. The Azerbaijani Armed Forces, demonstrating exceptional professionalism and unparalleled heroism, liberated Shusha on November 8 2020, achieving a historic victory.

As for the provocative gathering of Armenian separatists at Yerablur, this act is highly symbolic and casts doubt on Yerevan's publicly declared commitment to peace.

While the Armenian authorities publicly declare their commitment to a peaceful agenda, a small group of separatists is holding a full-scale rally in the heart of Yerevan. This fact gives Baku the legitimate right to present justified claims to the current Armenian government.

A reasonable question arises: why are Shahramanyan and his associates staging a “mourning procession” in honour of the occupation of the Azerbaijani city of Shusha in the very centre of Yerevan?

It is naïve to believe that the Armenian authorities are unaware of what is happening. It seems that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, on the one hand, reassures the international community of his peaceful intentions, while on the other, he is fostering an environment for the expression of revanchist sentiments within the country.

A clear confirmation of this is the existence of an "office" in Yerevan belonging to the former separatist junta of Karabakh, where, notably, Samvel Shahramanyan resides.

The double standards of the Armenian Prime Minister are further evidenced by the following episode. In March of last year, Shahramanyan, in an interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro, identified himself as the head of the virtual “NKR” and declared that the “decree” he signed in Khankendi in September 2023 to dissolve the separatist regime was “illegal.” He also stated that the so-called “NKR” and its “government” continue to operate in Yerevan, now as a “state and government in exile.” When asked by the Le Figaro correspondent whether such a “state and government in exile” exists, Shahramanyan responded: “Yes. In the building where I am meeting you in Yerevan, there is the office of the president, as well as the offices of the judicial and legislative structures of the NKR.”

In fact, Shahramanyan confirmed that the Armenian government is supporting the separatists. However, his revelations were quickly followed by sharp criticism from Pashinyan, who claimed that Shahramanyan's activities pose a threat to Armenia's national security.

“They talk about some government in exile and so on. I want to make it very clear, so everyone understands: there is only one government in the Republic of Armenia, and it is sitting right here in this hall. I want all of us to clearly record this message.”

However, behind these loud statements, no concrete actions followed — Shahramanyan's office was never closed. This clearly demonstrates that the Armenian Prime Minister's reaction was merely an attempt to deceive the international community, assuring it of Armenia’s non-involvement in supporting separatism.

Thus, Yerevan continues its efforts to maintain a peacekeeping image on the international stage, while in reality, its actions tell a different story.

At the same time, Pashinyan hoped that his lofty statements would make an impression on Azerbaijan. However, Baku is absolutely uninterested in Yerevan's hypocritical manoeuvres. For Azerbaijan, it is clear that Armenia is doing everything in its power to maintain territorial claims over Azerbaijan, refusing to abandon the absurd idea of “miatsum.”

Meanwhile, two key conditions set by Baku remain unmet: Armenia has not dissolved the OSCE Minsk Group and has not made changes to its constitution.

Moreover, the active militarisation of the country through Western arms supplies, as well as the increasing provocations from the Armenian armed forces, indicate that establishing peace with Azerbaijan is not part of Yerevan's plans.

Such a policy by the Armenian authorities could lead to a new war in the region. However, for Yerevan, this could result in another military-political blow to the remnants of its statehood. Is Armenia ready to face failure once again?