Will Armenia's former leaders overcome their fear of publicity? Pashinyan vs. the Karabakh clan

In Armenia, the spiral of confrontation between Prime Minister Pashinyan and the former presidents continues to escalate. Pashinyan’s recent statement, claiming that "since 1994, that is, after the ceasefire, the negotiation process has been about returning Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan," prompted responses from all three former Armenian leaders. However, what stands out is that they did not respond directly, but through their representatives.

Let’s first set aside the first president, Ter-Petrosyan. He faces less criticism in Armenia compared to the representatives of the Karabakh clan, partly because, first, he is not part of it, and second, it was under his leadership that the Karabakh occupation occurred. Moreover, due to his advanced age, he is not actively seeking power, meaning he is not a key player in the current disputes and responds, as it were, only reflexively.

Therefore, let's listen to the two others. Levon Kocharyan, a member of the "Armenia" bloc and the son of the second president, stated among other things: "Today, Pashinyan once again lied, claiming that since 1994, negotiations have been about returning Karabakh to Azerbaijan," and added, "It has been proven that the negotiations have always been about either joining Karabakh to Armenia or its independence. This is a fact that no one can deny."

"Nikol has voiced another absurdity – that since 1994, negotiations have only been about incorporating Karabakh into Azerbaijan. This is a blatant lie. As a result of the negotiation package left by Serzh Sargsyan, the Karabakh issue would have been resolved through the full implementation of the right to self-determination – via a referendum," wrote Eduard Sharmazanov, a representative of the Executive Body of Sargsyan’s Republican Party (RPA) and former vice-speaker of the Armenian parliament.

There is no need to engage in a substantive debate with Armenian politicians. The necessary points have already been proven on the battlefield. The focus now is not on the past, but on the present. Therefore, the most pertinent question is: why didn’t Kocharyan and Sargsyan respond personally? The answer is simple: they are fully aware of the deep animosity they face from the people of Armenia and are unwilling to further provoke them. This is precisely why they chose not to lead the protest movement themselves, instead selecting a "proxy" in Bagrat Galstyan.

Feeling the weakness of his political opponents, Nikol Pashinyan quickly seized the opportunity to exploit it. He published a new post that read: "It’s good that the former presidents responded to my post about the negotiation process through their representatives. But I don’t hide behind representatives, and I think it’s right that they don’t hide either. I am ready to defend what I’ve said in a live debate with the former presidents. I’m waiting for the presidents’ response, challenging my statement."

Thus, Pashinyan is going all in, and it seems he is winning. Here is how the office of Armenia’s third president, Serzh Sargsyan, responded to Pashinyan’s call: "It’s pointless to argue about the obvious, especially considering that both before and after the usurpation of power, the entire history of the negotiation process to resolve the Karabakh conflict has been publicly and thoroughly presented a thousand times."

Here is the response from the head of Robert Kocharyan’s office, Bagrat Mikoyan: "President Kocharyan no longer reads the rambling posts of the Prime Minister. A discussion requires a controversial topic. The fact that the transfer of the sovereign territories of Karabakh and Armenia is the personal 'achievement' of the current Prime Minister is an indisputable historical fact and obvious to all reasonable people."

If the two responses are combined into a single quote representing their leitmotif, it would read: "A discussion requires a controversial topic. It’s pointless to argue about the obvious."

A strange position. Typically, those trying to prove their point will use any platform, regardless of whether the issue seems, or truly is, indisputable. For instance, the question of Karabakh’s belonging to Azerbaijan did not spark debate in the international community. Nevertheless, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev did not disregard the platform of the Munich Security Conference for a debate with Pashinyan, even prior to the victorious 44-day war.

If Sargsyan and Kocharyan believe they are right and have the arguments to support it, then logically, they should dismantle their opponent thoroughly (as Aliyev did), significantly lower his approval rating, and help pave the way for his removal from the position of prime minister. However, the Karabakh clan is afraid—afraid of publicity. They understand that every new appearance before a wide audience will inevitably work against their own ratings.

According to the logic of events, since the Karabakh clan has put forward the Tavush priest Galstyan for their revenge, it is he who should pick up the gauntlet thrown down by the Armenian prime minister and challenge him in a debate.

The question is: will this happen?