Armenian society in suffocating grip of revanchism A barrier to progress and peace

On the morning of November 4, 2024, a statement by Tigran Abrahamyan, the secretary of the parliamentary faction " I Have Honor," circulated in the Armenian segment of social media, claiming that "the fate of the Armenian people has been entrusted to external forces" and "will be carried out in accordance with the preferences and priorities of these countries."

Certainly, many who come across these remarks will express support for Abrahamyan's statement, interpreting it as an indication that the Armenian political establishment is finally beginning to recognize the unfolding situation. However, the context leading up to this politician's declaration suggests something entirely different: a continuing escalation of anti-Azerbaijani hysteria within Armenian society.

Abrahamyan referred to the recent assertions made by the President of Azerbaijan regarding the dominance of "force" over "international law" as "not coincidental." According to him, this allegedly serves as “a justification for aggression against Armenia and Artsakh and its possible continuation.” This rhetoric is presented with utmost seriousness, poisoning the consciousness of the Armenian populace.

One might ask: what exactly does Abrahamyan disagree with in the context of the fact that international law has not worked for decades in terms of implementing the four UN Security Council resolutions calling for Armenia to end its occupation of Azerbaijani lands? And what aspect of Azerbaijan's adherence to international law in 2020, based on Article 51 of the UN Charter concerning self-defence, does Abrahamyan find unsatisfactory?

What is there to be surprised about, given that for Armenian politicians, historical truth is less important than the continuation of raising Armenian youth in an aggressive anti-Azerbaijani spirit? It would be one thing if these were isolated instances of ideological manipulation of the Armenian population. However, a similar format for presenting the evolving situation in the region was also showcased that same early morning of November 4 in the Armenian segment of social media by so-called political analyst Arman Abovyan, in an article with the provocative title "The War Is Not Over."

Interestingly, Abovyan chose a different approach to shaping the consciousness of Armenian youth in a revanchist context. In particular, he accused "the current authorities of Armenia of attempting to force us to agree to hand over our homeland to the Turkish-Azerbaijani Moloch."

It is intriguing, to say the least, to ponder whether Abovyan genuinely believes that Nikol Pashinyan's government is completely and unequivocally capitulating to the so-called "Turkish-Azerbaijani Moloch." Does he sincerely believe what he says, or is he simply trying once again to mislead his fellow citizens? Surely, he must be aware of the territorial claims against Azerbaijan enshrined in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia. He must also know that the Armenian Constitution affirms that the Armenian people accept "the fundamental principles of the Armenian Statehood and the nation-wide objectives enshrined in the Declaration on the Independence of Armenia."

If Abovyan is aware of these provisions, then the reason behind his attempts to obfuscate the truth and turn everything upside down in the context of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations becomes evident. The motivation is quite straightforward: to continue inflaming revanchist sentiments in Armenia, claiming that "the war continues," and as a result, "everyone must meticulously study the lessons of the 2020 war day by day, hour by hour, minute by minute." Only by thoroughly studying this war can one "understand that the war is not over."

"We will be killed, and our country will be destroyed," concludes the political analyst Abovyan, "if we suddenly agree to obey the enemy and forget who we are and who they are."

Without delving into comments on who constitutes "us" and who constitutes "them," we can generally support Abovyan's call to study not only the lessons of the Second Karabakh War but also the preceding thirty years, although it would be ideal to examine even earlier periods of Armenian history. But let’s be honest. Is such a development feasible for Armenia? As it stands today, Armenian political thought remains entrenched in its revanchist fervour, as evidenced by Abovyan’s theses. Otherwise, various segments of Armenian society would have been reflecting on the statement made nearly a year ago regarding Baku's willingness "to engage in direct negotiations with Armenia on a bilateral basis for the swift completion of the peace treaty process," when the Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasized the joint acceptance by both sides of the need to address "their future relations."

However, there is neither any study nor even a modicum of interest in a genuine shift away from the anti-Azerbaijani paradigm within Armenian society. However, as long as various segments of the Armenian population fail to recognize that revanchist ideas will not lead to anything positive for the Armenian people, it is unlikely that the situation will move from a standstill. In this light, the residents of the neighbouring country would do well to seriously consider the necessity for Armenia to revise certain provisions of its constitution. After all, implementing this nuance serves the interests of the Armenian people themselves, given their prospects for the future.