Reality vs. myths: Will Armenia embrace path to peace? Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

Baku responds with cautious optimism to Yerevan's loud calls for signing a peace treaty. It has already made it clear that it would like to see in practice how genuinely Armenia is committed to peace and whether it will fulfil other preconditions that Baku has identified as crucial.

Specifically, this refers to the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group upon the joint request of Baku and Yerevan, as well as changes to the Armenian constitution — removing territorial claims against Azerbaijan. And, although Baku is not actively discussing the issue of unblocking the Zangezur Corridor with Yerevan at the moment, this does not mean that Azerbaijan has forgotten Armenia’s obligations on this matter.

Will Yerevan continue on this path of peace — prudently responding to Azerbaijan's demands and implementing them in practice, or will it once again slow down, waver, and delay the process, turning everything into painfully familiar populism? This is the question that Caliber.Az correspondent posed to Russian and Kazakh experts.

Vasily Koltashev, a Russian political scientist and director of the Institute for the New Society, believes that Nikol Pashinyan, now that the balance of power has shifted unfavourably for Armenia, is simply forced to make concessions. The question is only how quickly this will happen.

"The Armenian leadership is interested in making these concessions go unnoticed by the population. For the authorities in Yerevan, it is important to maintain a peaceful situation — no gunfire, no bombs falling — and, on the other hand, to keep power in their hands. After all, they came to power through a movement organized with Western funding, and losing power is an unacceptable scenario for them. Armenian society is raised with an Armenian-centered worldview, where Armenia is the centre, and around it are only chaotic spaces with Americans, Russians, and Chinese. The leadership of Armenia fears that too noticeable concessions will provoke protests. Therefore, the process is slow.

For Pashinyan, it is important to preserve the negotiation process itself, as it allows him to remain in power. The process is more important to him than the result. It provides him with a comfortable life: foreign trips, negotiations, public statements. In the long term, he does not see his political role, nor does he genuinely care about Armenia's future. He actively exploits the myth of Armenia's 'European path,' an important part of which is the real conditions for joining the EU — renouncing territorial claims against Azerbaijan and resolving all disputed issues.

However, the reality is that even Georgia, which is much closer to the West, cannot join the EU — and even more so, Armenia will not be able to. Pashinyan knows that the promise of European integration is a lie. But this lie is his main resource because a significant portion of society believes in it," the political scientist explained.

Pashinyan would have to explain to the people why Armenia never became part of the EU if all issues with Azerbaijan were resolved. And this is impossible. Therefore, he deliberately drags out the process of making concessions to maintain the illusion of "moving forward."

"The Armenian leadership tells its people about the 'great nation' that will not give up its positions, and about the support of 'civilized countries,' especially France, which does provide important assistance to Armenia — the question is only how long it will last. In any case, concessions are gradually being made, and the change to Armenia's constitution is just a matter of time. The main problem is that the Armenian people live inside a national myth, not in real Armenia. It is this myth that Pashinyan and his team effectively use to hold onto power. But sooner or later, they will have to face reality," concluded Koltashev.

According to Kazakh political scientist and head of the A+Analytics research centre, Farhad Kasenov, Azerbaijan's concerns are entirely understandable.

"This conflict has lasted for decades, and during this time, there have been numerous attempts at peaceful resolution. Nearly 30 years of negotiations to resolve the issue through dialogue, but the process was delayed. Azerbaijan long hoped for the success of these negotiations, but eventually, it was forced to take the initiative into its own hands.

The situation radically changed after the 2020 war, when Azerbaijan managed to restore its territorial integrity. Now, it negotiates from a position of strength, having proven that it possesses not only military potential but also sufficient diplomatic resources to defend its rights. In fact, after the return of Karabakh under Azerbaijan's control, it became clear that the space for manoeuvre for the Armenian side had been significantly reduced," said Kasenov.

Armenia had attempted to rely on Russian peacekeeping forces and later turned to Western countries, particularly France. However, these attempts did not bring the desired results.

"Now, Azerbaijan has the opportunity to confidently defend its position, which is essentially based on the principles of international law. The time has come for the signing of a peace treaty, and Armenia must finally renounce any territorial claims. From Kazakhstan's perspective, we view this situation with cautious optimism.

For Pashinyan and his government, delaying the peace treaty is extremely disadvantageous, as it hampers regional cooperation and the restoration of stability in the South Caucasus. Armenia remains economically dependent on Russia, faces serious challenges in the midst of geopolitical turbulence, and Western support is gradually weakening," emphasized the political analyst.

Armenian society must come to terms with reality. Kasenov believes that Pashinyan himself has begun cautiously preparing the population for changes — such as the revision of the preamble to the Armenian Constitution. This process is inevitable: Armenia must move away from myth-making and look at the situation soberly.

"Armenians living in Armenia and those in the diaspora often hold different views. Those living abroad — for example, in France or the USA — often support the continuation of the conflict without realizing the real consequences. They make their arguments from a safe environment, with constant electricity, a stable economy, and peaceful skies above. But the people living in Armenia have already felt the hardships of war: losses, economic crisis. This is why the people of Armenia are more inclined toward compromise and peaceful resolution.

If Armenia wants to emerge from its prolonged crisis, it must critically reflect on the situation. In this context, we can recall the work of American historian Jared Diamond, Collapse, where he analyzes examples of countries overcoming deep political and social upheavals. One of the key factors in overcoming a crisis is society’s ability to recognize reality and abandon illusions.

If the Armenian people can recognize all the benefits of peace and all the drawbacks of militaristic sentiments, the country will have a chance for development. Armenia will be able to stop being a source of instability, begin economic recovery, and establish better relations with its neighbours. This is a difficult but necessary process, which will ultimately benefit both the Armenian people and the entire region," concluded Kasenov.