Pashinyan admits Armenian national consciousness shaped by third parties Following recent speech of the doubletalk guru

Yesterday, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan addressed the Armenian National Assembly to present the report "On the progress and results of the implementation of the 2021-2026 Programme of the Government of the Republic of Armenia for 2022".

As expected, a significant part of the speech was devoted to issues of the Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement. As usual, the Armenian prime minister made a number of mutually exclusive utterances. Let us start with the constructive statement from the viewpoint of a comprehensive peace: “Peace is possible if we, in all our international relations, clearly record not just for today but also for the future, that we recognize the Republic of Armenia as 29,800 square kilometers territory, more specifically the territory of the Armenian SSR, where we gained independence in 1991. And not only don’t we have any territorial claims towards any other country, but we will never have any.”

Beautiful words. However, their implementation requires nothing less than amendments to the Constitution of Armenia, which in Article 1 (the preamble) refers to the so-called Declaration of Independence, which, in turn, enshrines territorial claims to Karabakh. However, according to the same Constitution, Article 1 is not subject to change! The biggest mishap, however, is that even the article itself, which prohibits change, is also not amenable to change.

So the only way to get rid of this Article 1 is to adopt a new Constitution? However, we will not seriously consider such an option because it implies a total shift in the thinking of Armenian society. And the legal mechanisms for such a shift are not entirely clear.

In other words, it appears that any statements by the Armenian side about their readiness for peace are nothing more than fiction. Furthermore, in further statements, Pashinyan offers all sorts of tricks to evade the conclusion of comprehensive peace with Azerbaijan.

"The main question is whether this (peace with Azerbaijan and normalisation with Türkiye - ed.) is realistic and feasible. There are two sides to this question. Firstly, since peace is not built unilaterally, to what extent will Azerbaijan's actions and policies be geared towards peace? And secondly, especially after the 44-day war, if compromises are reached, how acceptable will they be to Armenian citizens and how much will they allow the painful implementation of these compromises?", Pashinyan floridly expounded on the problem to MPs. That is to say, the Armenian leader, having barely stated his recognition of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, immediately managed to question it. On the other hand, it is possible that the Prime Minister's latest statement suggests that Pashinyan himself agrees to peace, but must ask his citizens for permission. And if we follow this logic to the end, here we again find ourselves in the notorious preamble of the Armenian constitution with a reference to the Declaration of Independence and, consequently, in a deadlock.

Pashinyan further states: "A peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan is realistic if both countries clearly, without ambiguity or subterfuge, recognise each other's territorial integrity and undertake today and forever not to make territorial claims against each other ... I wish to reaffirm that Armenia fully recognises its territorial integrity and expects Azerbaijan to do the same, recognising the territory of the Armenian SSR as Armenian territory".

His words reek of blatant cheating. That is, Pashinyan expects that in response to his verbal recognition the Azerbaijani authorities will also offer something similar in order to secure the "29,800 square kilometres" that the Armenian premier is so fond of. In these circumstances words must be backed up by deeds - or to be more precise, concrete steps must first be taken. As a minimum to remove Armenian military formations from the territory of temporary responsibility of RPC, to stop the financing of the illegal regime in Khankendi, and further the list, including, by the way, the abolition (as we see, almost impossible) of the notorious constitutional article.

"After the 44-day war in 2020, Azerbaijan is in a state of euphoria and is thinking of taking as much as possible; and if possible, taking everything. This perception of it [i.e., Azerbaijan] is further fueled by the international situation. Basically, Azerbaijan directly or indirectly becomes or has become, an energy or logistics crossroads. And its importance has increased for both Russia and some Western countries," the prime minister begins from afar. By the way, it is not clear what exactly Pashinyan means by the word "everything" - Karabakh or Armenia? So Karabakh is ALL ours, and we don't need anyone else's.

Pashinyan noted that this situation contains both risks and opportunities. "We see the risks almost everywhere, whereas the opportunity is perhaps that the South Caucasus itself is a big crossroads. The role of Armenia and Georgia is also no less important in this. In this context, the peace and stability of the region can become a consensus between the West and Russia. If our region blows up again, at least in terms of energy, it could be a problem for both Russia and the West, with all the consequences that entail," Pashinyan said.

It turns out that the Prime Minister sees an opportunity for Armenia in the fact that the future peace with Azerbaijan will be the result of a consensus between the West and Russia. That is, by parties that are not very keen on a comprehensive political settlement of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. Something about this point haunts the memory of the defunct OSCE Minsk Group. And what do the words about blowing up the region mean? That "if this consensus (between Russia and the West - ed.) does not work out, we will make trouble, and we will die, but we will not let you live either"? Is this the way to understand this guru of doubletalk?

Armenian PM further said: "It is crucial that international mechanisms are in place to guarantee the implementation of the peace agreement. Otherwise, a war could break out the day after the signing, or a new escalation could happen". Pashinyan is once again trying to push through the issue of deploying an international mission to Karabakh. Elaborating on this idea, the Armenian head of state said that "it is also important to have a mechanism for the resolution of disputes between the parties. If they are not able to agree on the issues within the framework of the interpretation of the peace treaty, there will be an authority whose decision will be binding for the parties".

Curiously, what differences in the interpretation of the peace treaty is the Armenian prime minister talking about? Azerbaijan has repeatedly stated that it is ready to sign a peace treaty with Armenia only on the basis of the five principles. Those five principles do not imply any difference in interpretation. Yerevan has only two options: either to sign up for these principles or to remain in the status of a regional pariah. And Baku will pursue the reintegration of the Karabakh Armenians regardless of the presence or absence of a peace treaty.

However, there was one point in the Prime Minister's speech that I would like to welcome in terms of accurate analysis, an attempt to understand what is happening, and a hypothetical attempt to bring about the aforementioned shift in national thinking. This time he referred to the need to create a new state model of patriotism. "There is such an issue on the agenda, and its solution is vital for national security," the Prime Minister said, specifying that the Republic of Armenia and/or Armenian statehood has never been the primary object of the Armenian traditional model of patriotism. "And this situation on a socio-psychological level persists today. There is one reason: we are not the author of this model of patriotism, and it is time to admit it. We are co-authors at most, and more likely consumers," Pashinyan said.

The confession by the head of state that the Armenian nation, with all its mystified history and "miatsum" ideas, is nevertheless a victim of manipulation by third parties, is indeed a bold step. Whether this is a real action towards the total purification of the national consciousness, including the change of the constitution, or a mere rhetorical trick to caress the Azerbaijani ear is a big question.