"Pashinyan risks becoming the sacrificial victim" Experts weigh in on Armenia’s strategy for delaying peace

Yerevan is once again complaining about Azerbaijan. However, this time, it seems the complaints are being voiced in bulk, covering almost all aspects, and the task has been entrusted to Armenia's Deputy Foreign Minister, Paruyr Hovhannisyan. 

According to him, "Baku is in no rush to respond to Armenia's proposals for a peace treaty, and is somewhat indifferent to Armenia's 'Crossroads of Peace' initiative." It has also become clear that Yerevan is once again relying on the EU as a mediator in the negotiation process and regrets that it is not participating. 

Regarding negotiations with Türkiye, Yerevan is also disappointed – "political dialogue is conducted at the level of foreign ministers, the president, and the prime minister, but many agreements have still not been implemented." Despite Azerbaijan's negative stance on the EU spy mission on the Armenian side of the conditional border, Hovhannisyan believes that its deployment "reduces the likelihood of escalation."

What is Armenia truly satisfied with? And why is Yerevan so eager to shift the blame for the stalled negotiations onto others – perhaps because it lacks a genuine commitment to advancing the process? A correspondent from Caliber.Az spoke to foreign political experts to gain their insights on this issue.

According to Petr Petrovsky, a research fellow at the Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences and an expert at the Center for Eurasian Integration Studies, Armenia has found itself in a geopolitical deadlock. Its political "shifting" has led to conflicts with former allies. In such a situation, the country's authorities can only rely on promises from their Western "friends," even though it is clear that the European Union is currently not focused on Armenia – it is unable to even form a peacekeeping mission in Ukraine.

"The EU is in confrontation with three major geopolitical powers – Russia, China, and the USA. Therefore, Pashinyan's hopes for external support seem naive: he is given promises, but he fails to assess the European Union's capabilities realistically. Furthermore, the EU's actions in the South Caucasus appear illogical. Neither Armenia, Azerbaijan, nor Georgia are EU members, and the Union has no real authority there. The EU's attempts to intervene in regional events cause, at the very least, concern among players such as Russia and Iran, and at most, could lead to international repercussions for Armenia.

Since coming to power in 2018, Pashinyan has tried to maneuver between different geopolitical directions, but it has now become clear that his actions are driven by the interests of Western globalists. These forces have already been defeated in the United States but are still attempting to use the South Caucasus for destabilization. As a result, Pashinyan risks becoming the 'sacrificial victim' of the situation. He demonstrates an unwillingness to resolve issues peacefully, drawing in external players who have no stake in the conflict. This is a classic tactic – to drag out the process and derail any real peace initiatives. In this regard, Pashinyan resembles Trotsky with his principle of 'neither peace nor war.' Essentially, Pashinyan is a classic 'Trotskyist,'" according to the political scientist.

He argues that the extension of the European mission's mandate in Armenia is further evidence of Yerevan's political dependence. Instead of turning to the UN or other neutral organizations, the country's authorities have handed over their territory to a conflict-prone entity – the EU, which is in confrontation with Russia and Iran. This undermines Armenia's trustworthiness in the eyes of its neighbors – Azerbaijan, Türkiye, Iran, Russia, and even Georgia.

"Thus, Pashinyan's policy is leading not to peace agreements but to the prolongation of the conflict. Trust between the countries of the region is diminishing, and the EU's presence in Armenia brings nothing but destructive consequences," says Petrovsky.

According to Kyrgyz analyst and director of the Institute of World Politics, Sheradil Baktygulov, the speech by Armenia's Deputy Foreign Minister reflects an attempt to manipulate public opinion, especially among those who are unfamiliar with the real state of relations between Baku and Yerevan.

"The key message boils down to the idea that Armenia supposedly became a victim of the circumstances of the Second Karabakh War and is now forced to follow Azerbaijan's demands. However, this is not true, as it ignores the fact that Armenia previously occupied Azerbaijani territories, disregarding four UN Security Council resolutions calling for the withdrawal of its armed forces from Karabakh. Unfortunately, these demands were never fulfilled.

Another important point raised was the 'Crossroads of Peace' initiative. Although the name sounds appealing, in reality, it essentially freezes the agreements already made regarding a more optimal Zangezur Corridor.

Additionally, it is important to note that Türkiye has expressed its position on normalizing relations with Armenia. The first step must be a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as without it, full trade and economic cooperation and trust between the countries are impossible.

The second key point Ankara highlighted is the opening of the Zangezur Corridor – a transportation route connecting two parts of Azerbaijan that had been separated. This issue remains crucial for resolving the situation in the region," the expert reminded.

He questions the advisability of the EU mission's presence on the border with Azerbaijan, which the Armenian minister also mentioned.

"If Azerbaijan were an aggressor, this would make sense, but everyone understands that Azerbaijan is not an aggressor, even though it is being portrayed as such. Azerbaijan merely restored control and constitutional order over its territories, which had been under Armenian occupation.

Therefore, summarizing the analysis of the Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister's speech, the conclusion seems to be that there is an effort to delay the negotiation process. But another question arises: does this approach truly align with Armenia's national interests? It becomes clear that it better serves the goals and objectives of those European states that are outside the region but would very much like to be present in it as an active, decisive force," concluded Baktygulov.