Peace in words The diplomatic farce of Armenia

The Armenian government is trying hard to “sit on two chairs,” which is why it is in no hurry to make a final decision on the country’s future foreign policy course — aiming to preserve economic benefits from participation in Eurasian integration structures and close cooperation with European financial organisations. This policy of trying to please both Russia and Europe was once again recently confirmed by Armenia’s Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan.

At a seminar of EU ambassadors to Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Mirzoyan declared the following: “Armenia has been making irreversible choices - toward democracy, toward peace, toward Europe. We trust that these decisive steps will be met with equally bold and strategic engagement from our European partners, solidifying a truly reciprocal and transformative partnership. In doing so, we seek not only support but partnership, not only encouragement but sustained engagement.”

And this statement fundamentally contradicts his own words, which he literally voiced the very next day at a press conference with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov, held during the visit of the Russian Foreign Minister to Yerevan.

Answering a journalist’s question about the possibility of the country simultaneously joining both the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Armenian minister unequivocally stated: “The Republic of Armenia has not submitted an application to join the European Union, the talks on this track are not being held and, accordingly, the issue which might have emerged in this regard, is not pertinent.”

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that Ararat Mirzoyan was trying to dispel Moscow’s concerns related to a potential pivot of Yerevan towards the West. After all, the Kremlin has solid, ironclad arguments supporting these concerns in the form of Armenia’s authorities’ constant glances towards their patrons in Paris and Brussels.

In short, the foreign policy course of official Yerevan is a series of contradictions and inconsistencies, and Ararat Mirzoyan resembles a self-interested Truffaldino who changes his shoes on the fly, dreaming of grabbing a bigger, juicier piece here and there.

Well, let them have their Armenian vacillations back and forth. What matters to us is that in these speculative games, the Armenian side tries to play the role of a “peace-loving builder of peace,” misleading the international community and loudly proclaiming Armenia’s alleged commitment to peace with Azerbaijan and Turkey, while in reality attempting to lead negotiations into a dead end, sabotaging Baku’s peace agenda.

A clear confirmation of this is Ararat Mirzoyan’s attempt at the above-mentioned seminar to portray Azerbaijan, to put it mildly, in a less-than-favourable light, along with his tearful plea to the European Union to “put pressure on Baku.”

“We steadfastly pursue a comprehensive and institutionalised peace with Azerbaijan. As you are aware, Armenia and Azerbaijan have announced that the draft text of the Peace Treaty has been finalised and Armenia is ready to sign and ratify this document without further delay. While it is not yet clear whether Azerbaijan has sincere concerns or is artificially delaying the process, the fact is that the draft Peace Treaty agreed upon by both of us has not yet been signed…In any case, we call upon our European partners to intensify their support for this process. Hence, we expect our EU partners to consistently underline the need for the prompt signing of the peace agreement with Armenia, both in their direct engagements with Baku and in their public statements and communications,” said the Armenian minister.

From Mirzoyan’s statements, the following conclusion is obvious: Armenia has still not abandoned the idea of signing a peace agreement with Azerbaijan while bypassing Baku’s key demands, failing to draw the appropriate lessons from previous unsuccessful attempts to sign a “truncated” treaty. Meanwhile, the Azerbaijani side’s conditions remain unchanged: amending the Armenian Constitution to exclude territorial claims against Azerbaijan and the de jure dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group.

The Armenian side has not moved an inch on any of these demands — neither on changing its constitution nor on the practical dismantling of the institutional remnants of its confrontational policy. There is clear evidence of this — both in Mirzoyan’s outright false statements about Armenia’s alleged readiness for peace with Azerbaijan and in the recent vague responses by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to specific questions from an Azerbaijani journalist in Tirana.

“We do not yet have a draft of a new constitution, but we have analysed our constitution, we know the issues raised by Azerbaijan, and it is obvious that, de jure, according to the decision of our Constitutional Court, our current constitution contains no territorial claims against our neighbours. This is now a legally established fact, and it is very important,” said Pashinyan.

For reference: in April of this year, Pashinyan expressed a completely opposite opinion regarding the Armenian constitution, stating that the new version should not include any reference to the Declaration of Independence, and that the provisions of the Declaration of Independence, which underpin the current constitution, threaten Armenia with war.

In March 2025, the Armenian Prime Minister announced that the authorities plan to hold a referendum on the adoption of the new constitution in 2027, noting that his team is also considering the possibility of holding the referendum simultaneously with the parliamentary elections in 2026.

In early May, Armenia’s Minister of Justice Srbuhi Galyan told journalists that the text of the new Armenian constitution will be ready within 10 months, explaining that the document is currently being worked on. However, regarding the Prime Minister’s statement, she noted that the issue of removing the reference to the Declaration of Independence from the fundamental law has not been discussed. Comments here, as they say, are unnecessary.

Another nuance cannot be left unmentioned. At the regional seminar of EU ambassadors, Ararat Mirzoyan tried to push Pashinyan’s “Crossroads of Peace” project onto the discussion agenda—a project that is reasonably criticised by Baku.

At a meeting focused on transport issues, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev stated: “They [Armenia] have come up with the so-called ‘Peace Crossroads’ project, and now there is not a single country in the world they have not shared this project with. However, this so-called project is not worth two cents without Azerbaijan, and we have repeatedly conveyed this to the Armenian side through various channels. If you truly want to implement this project, first of all, you should approach Azerbaijan. Because without us, it is just a piece of paper, and our terms are fair, grounded in international law and the obligations Armenia itself has undertaken.”

We would add that the absurdity of Pashinyan’s idea also lies in the fact that it is completely unrealistic due to Armenia’s lack of access to the sea, weak transport infrastructure, and the impracticality of attracting investments into large-scale transport projects. Thus, this initiative by Pashinyan is nothing more than a utopia, designed to blindfold the international community and convince it of Armenia’s “peacefulness.”

Azerbaijan has every reason not to trust the statements of the Armenian authorities, behind whose verbal gymnastics there is clear evidence of active militarisation and preconditions for unleashing a new war. Yerevan should take this to heart: until Armenia legally enshrines the renunciation of claims to Azerbaijani territories in its constitution, its illusions about a peace treaty will not become reality, and all attempts to pressure Baku are predictably doomed to failure. This has been proven more than once.