Overcoming dependence On Pashinyan’s latest statements

On April 16, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan made a number of noteworthy remarks during a conversation with media representatives, directly or indirectly touching upon the Armenia-Azerbaijan normalisation process.

In particular, Pashinyan addressed the issue of border delimitation and demarcation. “Regarding the continuation of the delimitation/demarcation process, we have also sent a written proposal to Azerbaijan and are awaiting a response. I do not believe the situation is at a deadlock, and we will continue consistent work in this direction,” the Armenian prime minister said.

Indeed, the issue of delimitation and demarcation raises the fewest questions and is perhaps the most productive aspect of the Armenia-Azerbaijan track — unlike everything else.

For example, Pashinyan also spoke on the issue of opening communications, once again substituting Armenia’s obligation under the Trilateral Statement with vague prospects of the so-called “Crossroads of Peace.” In this context, he reiterated his manipulative rhetoric: “In Azerbaijan, they say that since Armenia is not providing a solution, they have decided to use the Iranian route. This means that the Iranian route and its conditions are acceptable to them; otherwise, they would not use that road. And we, in order to ensure everything is clear in this context, say that we are ready to provide a road through the territory of the Republic of Armenia under the same conditions.”

We have commented on such statements by Pashinyan in the past. To keep it brief, we’ll sum up our previous response in a single sentence: Unlike Armenia, Iran did not occupy Azerbaijani territories, did not lose a war to us, and did not sign an act of capitulation.

Perhaps the most curious statement made by the Armenian prime minister concerned Armenia’s Constitution. “Years ago—though I don’t remember exactly when—in my address marking the anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Armenia, I said that after studying the text of the Declaration, I came to the conclusion that this text is about the fact that there cannot be an independent, sovereign Republic of Armenia. And if I say this, then I cannot claim that the new text of the Constitution should include a reference to the Declaration of Independence. On the contrary, I can say that, in my opinion, the new Constitution should not contain any reference to the Declaration of Independence. However, it will ultimately be up to the Armenian people to decide—of course, political forces will need to present arguments both for and against.”

As always, somewhat convoluted, but the message is clear. Incidentally, it’s worth noting that Pashinyan did not speak about the Declaration of Independence “years ago,” but rather as recently as last November, during discussions on the 2025 state budget draft in Armenia’s National Assembly. At the time, Pashinyan noted that he had read the Declaration dozens of times in recent years, and went on to say: “I came to the horrifying conclusion that the content of this Declaration of Independence implies that the Republic of Armenia cannot exist. This is our greatest problem and tragedy. The real question now is: what is the real Armenia, and who is its citizen? A citizen of the real Armenia is someone who does not seek a homeland outside this place. A citizen of the real Armenia is someone who searched, searched, searched—and found their homeland in the Republic of Armenia.”

In other words, it’s clear that even then, he was laying the groundwork for a more explicit articulation of his position on the need to remove any reference to the Declaration of Independence from Armenia’s Constitution.

Now that he has voiced this idea, Pashinyan was quick to reassure the Armenian public that his stance is supposedly not linked to any demands from Baku: “But I would like us to distinguish between two issues — Azerbaijan’s perception of the peace process and the text of our Constitution. I already spoke about this yesterday. The issue of adopting a new Constitution was on our agenda right after the revolution, and I had already addressed it in an interview back in February 2020.”

Indeed, even before the 44-day war, Pashinyan’s team initiated discussions on constitutional reform. However, at the time, the debate was not about references to the Declaration of Independence, but rather centred on structural reforms of Armenia’s state system — including the possible return to a presidential form of government.

That said, we are not particularly concerned with how exactly the Armenian leader chooses to frame the need for constitutional changes to his public. What matters is that the changes are actually implemented. Right now, it is critically important for us to understand what the Armenian people think. If they reject constitutional reform in a referendum, it will mean that peace remains out of reach for a very long time. It will mean that the Armenian people are once again stepping on the same rake — and will continue to do so until they realise that something in their national trajectory must change dramatically.

Overall, Pashinyan’s speech can be considered constructive in terms of advancing the idea of amending Armenia’s Constitution. At the same time, it must always be borne in mind that this is driven not so much by Pashinyan’s commitment to peace, but rather by Baku’s actions — which, step by step, gradually and persistently, through resistance, is compelling Yerevan to accept its terms. Moreover, Pashinyan has a track record of saying one thing and doing another. We cannot be certain that he is sincere in his statements. Armenia’s active militarisation, in fact, only reinforces the opposite impression.

In a broader context — as already noted above — when the critical moment arrives, that is, the day of the referendum on constitutional amendments, it will not be Pashinyan making the choice, but the citizens of Armenia. However, it is up to the prime minister to determine how Armenian society will be prepared for this decision. Will Pashinyan be active and consistent in persuading the public of the need to break away from the old ideology? Or will he merely state the problem while shrugging his shoulders, saying, “It’s up to you, I have nothing to do with it”? — Time will tell.