Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s statements regarding border demarcation and peace negotiations with Azerbaijan reveal a policy that has led not only to territorial losses but also to the erosion of Armenia’s statehood foundations. This article examines the dangerous consequences of his approach and explains why it contradicts national interests.
Pashinyan’s current policy is framed around the idea of peace but is achieved at the cost of concessions that neither guarantee security nor strengthen Armenia’s position.
- Loss of Artsakh: The handover of Artsakh territories without international guarantees resulted in mass displacement and genocide. Now, the Armenian government speaks of legal frameworks that would allow Azerbaijan to avoid accountability for these actions by proposing mutual renunciation of international claims.
- Concessions in Border Demarcation: The demarcation process initiated by Pashinyan demonstrates one-sided concessions that not only fail to secure Armenia’s borders but also open the door to further territorial losses, especially since Azerbaijan continues to occupy parts of Armenian territory and demands autonomous routes within Armenia.
Pashinyan’s policies align with a form of propaganda that undermines historical truths. According to his statements, Soviet-era borders are being taken as the foundation for current independent states’ borders. This not only ignores historical justice but also legitimizes Soviet territorial decisions that gifted lands to Azerbaijan, effectively questioning the Declaration of Armenia’s Independence, its anthem, and other national symbols. Meanwhile, his flawed tax policies are labeled as anti-state, extending even to his criticism of Armenian cultural attitudes toward money.
- Loss of Values: This approach calls into question the foundations of Armenian identity, historical justice, and sovereignty.
- Territorial Concessions Without Reciprocity: Armenia has received no guarantees in return for handing over territories under its control to Azerbaijan.
Peace cannot be an end in itself if its price includes the loss of national dignity, sovereignty, and security. Azerbaijan’s continued aggression and demands for the “Zangezur Corridor” demonstrate that peace under these conditions is impossible unless Armenia strengthens its defense capabilities. This policy not only fails to bolster national unity but also deepens societal divisions.
Pashinyan’s policies do not contribute to lasting peace but instead erode the foundations of Armenia’s statehood and disregard national interests. Peace cannot come at the cost of the destruction of the state. These approaches must be urgently reconsidered to ensure Armenia’s security and dignity. The coming years will determine whether this policy can be reversed to restore Armenia’s sovereignty or if it will continue leading the country into deeper crises.