As the Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan has made numerous statements in recent years that have raised concerns about his commitment to national interests. These statements, often framed as hypotheses or proposals, appear to provide him with a shield against criticism while avoiding direct accountability.
His recent interview continues this pattern, which many perceive as marking a “new anti-state era.” Here, we evaluate these statements on a scale of 1 to 10, measuring their potential harm to Armenia’s statehood and national security.
1. Proposal to Limit Third-Party Presence on Borders
Pashinyan proposes the removal of third-party forces only in delimited border areas. This suggests an acceptance of third-party presence in non-delimited zones, potentially undermining Armenia’s sovereignty. Additionally, this approach involves negotiating Armenia’s sovereign decisions with Azerbaijan.
Anti-State Risk Score: 8/10
2. Withdrawal of Legal Claims in International Courts
Agreeing to withdraw legal cases from international courts could absolve Azerbaijan of accountability for crimes against humanity and human rights violations. This concession disregards justice for Armenian victims and undermines the pursuit of international accountability.
Anti-State Risk Score: 8/10
3. Interpretations of Constitutions in Armenia and Azerbaijan
While Pashinyan claims that Armenia’s constitution does not contain territorial demands against Azerbaijan, he fails to demand that Azerbaijan abandon its constitutional territorial claims, which include significant portions of Armenia’s territory. This approach weakens Armenia’s position.
Anti-State Risk Score: 9/10
4. Stance on Military Threats
Pashinyan’s assertion that Armenia will not use military means to reclaim its occupied territories may be seen as a sign of weakness, potentially emboldening Azerbaijan to pursue more aggressive actions. Such a stance undermines Armenia’s deterrence capability.
Anti-State Risk Score: 9/10
5. Acceptance of Military Budget Disparities
Azerbaijan’s military budget surpasses Armenia’s threefold, yet Pashinyan’s approach to limit arms procurement jeopardizes Armenia’s defense capabilities. This not only undermines military readiness but also damages public morale and international confidence in Armenia as a reliable partner.
Anti-State Risk Score: 8/10
6. Equating Escalation Likelihood to Zero
Pashinyan’s claim that the likelihood of escalation is zero if Azerbaijan has no intention to attack ignores Azerbaijan’s unpredictable and aggressive policies. This creates a false sense of security and exposes Armenia to potential threats.
Anti-State Risk Score: 9/10
7. Proposals on Regional Communications and Corridor Logic
Pashinyan’s statement that a solution for reopening railway connections is acceptable to both sides implicitly endorses the “corridor logic” promoted by Azerbaijan. This poses a serious risk to Armenia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Anti-State Risk Score: 8/10
8. Ratification of the Peace Treaty
Pashinyan suggests that ratifying the peace treaty could alleviate constitutional concerns. However, if the treaty conflicts with Armenia’s constitution, it could lead to a constitutional crisis, forcing Armenia to concede under external pressure.
Anti-State Risk Score: 8/10
9. Continuation of Border Delimitation Process
Pashinyan advocates for continuing border delimitation. However, there are no guarantees that Azerbaijan will not exploit this process to make additional demands, which could jeopardize Armenia’s territorial integrity.
Anti-State Risk Score: 7/10
Overall Anti-State Risk Score: 8.2/10
Pashinyan’s rhetoric, often framed as logical and measured, carries significant risks not only to Armenia’s sovereignty and security but also to its internal cohesion. His repeated concessions and hypothetical approaches create a perception of vulnerability and indecision, which undermines public trust in government institutions. This erosion of confidence destabilizes the nation’s internal life, fostering frustration and polarization among citizens.
Why Pashinyan’s Rhetoric is Dangerous for Society and Stability:
Pashinyan’s approach risks creating deep divisions within Armenian society by framing national issues as hypothetical debates rather than decisive actions. By avoiding direct accountability and shifting blame, he weakens public trust in state institutions, leading to disillusionment and cynicism. This erodes the foundation of tolerance and solidarity, replacing it with distrust and tension. His rhetoric, which downplays immediate threats, distracts the public from pressing security and social challenges, leaving society fragmented and unprepared for potential crises.
These dynamics threaten the very fabric of Armenia’s social stability and undermine efforts to foster unity and resilience during challenging times. For a nation facing existential threats, a cohesive and decisive leadership is not just preferable—it is essential.
The public must critically examine these approaches and demand clear explanations and accountability for the potential consequences of these policies.
