US diplomatic maneuvering vs. Armenia’s foreign policy missteps A path to catastrophic consequences for Yerevan

The United States continues to publicly declare that it is actively working through diplomacy to bring Azerbaijan and Armenia closer to a peace agreement. However, they are not exerting any pressure on Yerevan to amend the Armenian constitution, which contains territorial claims against Azerbaijan—an important condition for concluding a peace treaty that Baku has repeatedly emphasized.

While the periodic courting of Armenia by the US for Armenian diaspora votes in elections is a well-known fact, Yerevan’s current entanglement with Washington’s temporary patronage is seriously testing Baku’s patience and could lead to significant setbacks in the dialogue with Azerbaijan.

What might these Machiavellian maneuvers by Armenia lead to? What is driving Washington’s increased interest in a peace settlement between Azerbaijan and Armenia? These questions are explored by experts in the latest report from Caliber.Az.

According to Irina Tsukerman, the US geopolitical analyst, editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, it is not in the US interest to prolong the conclusion of a peace agreement between Baku and Yerevan. She argues that the Biden administration requires a diplomatic achievement before November, given the overall grim state of foreign policy.

"The issue is that the Armenian lobby in the US is generally opposed to a peace treaty. Therefore, if Washington believes that Yerevan and American Armenians, whose votes Biden seeks in the elections, share the same objectives as the White House, they are making a serious political miscalculation.

It is important to note that Yerevan is attempting to extract maximum advantage at this stage not so much because of electoral pressure in the US, but rather because Washington prioritizes the creation of a united anti-Russian front.

Essentially, Yerevan is exploiting the attention it receives from the West following its rift with Moscow, while simultaneously trying to placate a restless domestic opposition that is also against various concessions, as well as seeking to appease the Armenian lobby that supports the opposition and revanchists.

In this regard, Yerevan has clearly adopted an Iranian-style approach to negotiations—pretending to agree to certain terms, then ignoring the agreement's provisions and making extreme demands again.

The last thing in the White House's interest is to allow these talks to be sabotaged by Yerevan's games or the extremism of the Armenian lobby, because in this case Washington will lose not once or twice (Yerevan and the elections), but three times - when trying to re-establish an equivalent dialogue with Baku, both at the diplomatic level and for energy interaction.

Given that the economy and energy are the two leading issues on the pre-election spectrum, Washington must proceed cautiously and subtly, and perhaps also use its leverage to expose the bluff of the domestic American Armenian lobby over its supposed concern for Armenia's interests. The strategy is applied here with an attempt to maximize Washington's involvement in Armenian games and interests, but in reality they are completely unnecessary and harmful to the US," Tsukerman said.

At the same time, Armenian blogger, activist and public figure Ishkhan Verdyan believes that in his time the President of Azerbaijan gave a very accurate characterization of the OSCE Minsk Group, saying that its activities do not bring peace closer, but on the contrary - distances it.

“Since the United States, along with France and the Russian Federation, served as co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, I have refused to assess their policies in the South Caucasus outside the context of this organization. Within the Minsk Group, the US has certainly pursued its own interests, and there is no reason to believe that these interests have changed even slightly. The actions of French political leaders, reports by US lobbying organizations, and the maneuvers of Armenia's domestic political actors, who are under Russian influence, leave no doubt that the OSCE Minsk Group continues its efforts to delay peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. If we look beyond the rhetorical statements and focus on practical actions, it becomes evident that the co-chairs of the Minsk Group persist in their policy as delineated by President Aliyev.

I am inclined to view US activities from this perspective rather than seeing it as a matter of domestic political parties trying to win the votes of several hundred thousand Armenian-American voters. Whether under a Democratic or Republican administration, the United States follows a very steady policy towards the South Caucasus. Therefore, no matter how Armenian-Americans vote, it will not significantly affect US interests or compel the American establishment to shift its strategic goals,” the blogger emphasized.

“As for Armenia, I would like to refer once more to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s statement, where he expressed regret over not having taken certain steps earlier. This admission reflects a broader recognition of missed opportunities and a sentiment of regret for not having acted earlier,” he added.

“Such statements reflect that the Armenian leadership has often made significant mistakes, and as an Armenian citizen, it is painful for me to admit this. There have indeed been monumental errors, such as Nikol Pashinyan’s 2019 declaration regarding the status of Karabakh, the ‘joint meeting of the security councils of Artsakh and Armenia’ in Yerevan in the spring of 2021, and comments by the Secretary of the Security Council, Armen Grigoryan, in the same year about sending mercenaries rather than conscripts to Karabakh.

There was the addition of a sixth point to President Aliyev’s five-point peace proposal, which was later hastily retracted. These errors highlight only one thing — the incompetence of Pashinyan’s administration in handling foreign policy matters. This is likely due to the mentality of Armenian leaders who, as Nikol Pashinyan himself described, ‘carried the idea of Armenia from sea to sea,’ and many in his team continue to embody this notion.

While it is positive that past mistakes are being addressed, it is unfortunate that new errors are being made. I view the current actions of Armenia’s foreign ministry as yet another mistake.

Another mistake is Armenia's refusal to adopt a new constitution before signing the peace treaty. And here it is not the preconditions of the Azerbaijani side at all, but the Armenian legislation itself. After all, the peace treaty with Azerbaijan contradicts the current Constitution of Armenia, and under the Article 116 of the same Constitution ‘an international treaty cannot be ratified if it contradicts the Constitution’.

Consequently, even if Prime Minister Pashinyan signs the peace treaty, it will be annulled by the Constitutional Court of Armenia as violating the Constitution. Then it will turn out that both Armenia and Azerbaijan have signed an empty piece of paper, and this may lead to catastrophic consequences for Yerevan. But the Armenian leadership doesn't notice this important aspect, and it reveals another flaw of the government - they not only don't know foreign policy, but they also have problems with understanding their own legislation," Verdyan pointed out the contradictions.

In his opinion, Armenia has a government that can't calculate steps ahead and learns only from its mistakes, having made them beforehand.

"However, any other government in Armenia will mean revanchism, war and bloodshed, and I, as an Armenian citizen, have to hope only that Nikol Pashinyan's government will not break under the weight of its own mistakes. And it will make mistakes for a long time to come," the blogger concluded.