Washington throws cold water on Armenia's risky debates with Baku What about Pelosi's sobbing in Yerevan?

The US intends to make Armenia as soon as possible to forget even thinking about Karabakh - this plan of Americans is voiced in their media by disappointed pro-Russian Armenian political analysts and politicians. But back in October, Yerevan was making grandiose plans related to a new stage of "Armenian-American friendship", as if not seeing that Washington has nothing more important than its own strategic interests, and it does not really care about the ephemeral happiness of the "country of stones". For the US, Yerevan is not a partner but merely a tool in a world of rising passions.

Armenian websites are still analysing US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's admonishing tone in his phone conversation with Pashinyan on November 16, bewildering why, all of a sudden, the call, or rather, the demand to "maintain the momentum of peace talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia after the November 7 meeting of foreign ministers in Washington" is addressed only to the Armenian side. Moreover, the US diplomatic chief made it clear to Yerevan that the United States is committed to these efforts; that is, they are watching everything and controlling everything.

Some details of the conversation between the "friends", as Armenians initially tried to portray it, became clear only recently: Armenian media report that Blinken spoke to Pashinyan in a rather harsh tone, which, according to the Armenian media, was due to "geopolitical reasons". Washington is gravely concerned by the messages flooding the Armenian political scene in connection with Russia's proposals on the normalisation of relations, according to the Past newspaper. Meanwhile, the Armenian authorities have repeatedly stated that they are in favour of the Russian proposal, which they claim is to "leave the Karabakh settlement issue to future generations, extend the stay of the Russian peacekeepers in the region," etc. The Armenians as usual interpret the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin in their manner.

The Americans are not satisfied with either of the Russian options. That's why Blinken attacked Pashinyan, seeking to put pressure on the utterly unpredictable Armenian premier, who is, however, ready to be on both sides of the fence. That is why Armenia took so painfully this attack and Washington's instructions. It was not so long ago that Pelosi was sobbing at the Armenian memorial for the "innocent victims", and Yerevan was full of confidence that the US would always and everywhere be in favour of the Armenian desires.

After Blinken's "cold shower", the Armenian expert community is beginning to wake up and turn on its logic. It has come down to earth, so to speak. For example, Armenian political scientist Stepan Danielyan understood that the US needs Karabakh to be recognised as part of Azerbaijan because in this case Russian peacekeepers will leave the region at the next stage and the presence of a Russian military base in Armenia will also become pointless.

According to the doctor of political sciences Artur Khachikyan, Blinken's discontent was caused by the fact that the Armenian premier changed his tone and too risky debates with Baku, in particular, stating the prospect of genocide and restoration of "the territorial integrity of Armenia".

"Blinken's message was that these issues should not be dealt with, a peace agreement should be signed," Khachikyan stresses.

This is the main reason for indignation in Armenia: Washington reacts in no way to the danger of "ethnic cleansing and genocide, i.e. it is not noticed by the West". That's right - the Americans know where the truth is and what is far-fetched.

Roughly speaking, they got what they fought for.

Needless to say, the US is extremely pragmatic and does not recognise sentiment in serious matters, especially in politics. Their small flirtation with Yerevan was conditioned only by Democrats' wish to get more votes in the Armenian Diaspora, which is abundant in the USA, undoubtedly. Now that the Democrats have almost lost to the Republicans. Goodbye, Armenia, and long live America's vital interests.

These interests also consist of the understanding that Armenia is, in every sense, outside the vectors of American policy. Azerbaijan is much more understandable and accessible in this respect. And it is attractive as a business partner. Armenia is oriented towards France and would gladly hide behind its back, but Paris, of course, has its own games - President Macron does not think it necessary to humble his ambitions and has long claimed political leadership in Europe, which gives some freedom from the US. Yerevan is trying to be complicit in various rival coalitions with the US - for example, Pashinyan's entire cabinet recently attended the 18th summit of Francophonie, an international organisation of French-speaking countries, in Tunisia, and made some provocative statements there.

Azerbaijan, as a long-time partner of Britain, is much closer to the US and is not asking for anything; it is only offering cooperation, the experience of which Washington has with Baku, take at least the oil "Contract of the Century". So many interests of the two countries coincide here. The main thing for any international contacts is that Azerbaijan is a country with a multi-vector independent policy, which tomorrow will not run away from the format of partnership obligations and will not change its position to please some sponsor-patron. Even some of the world's leading political players cannot boast of such a solid diplomatic stance.