- Tatevik Hayrapetyan publicly questions whether Armenia’s government is capable and principled enough to protect the state and its citizens.
- A recent annual report by Armenia’s Foreign Intelligence Service warns that Azerbaijan’s “West Azerbaijan” propaganda and the rhetoric of returning Western Azerbaijanis remain active and risky for regional stability.
- The report notes that post-Washington Covenant-era messaging has intensified, challenging regional peace and potentially shifting the conflict’s dynamics toward Armenian territory.
- The author argues that US mediation is valuable for buying time, but the political class has not implemented real measures to neutralize the threats, hiding the risks behind peace rhetoric.
The discourse surrounding Armenia’s security and governance has taken on a sharper edge in 2026, as a public-facing accountability debate intersects with strategic intelligence assessments about neighboring Azerbaijan. A prominent Armenian analyst, Tatevik Hayrapetyan, published a pointed Facebook post critiquing the country’s leadership for what she calls “non-competent governance” and for a style of diplomacy that appears more like peace theater than a robust, risk-aware policy. Her statements, which echoed for days across political commentary, frame a bigger discussion: when the actions—or inactions—of those in power threaten the state and national security, what remains of democratic accountability and public trust?
The catalyst for this broader conversation is a yearly assessment released by Armenia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (FSI). The document, which Hayrapetyan cites, presents a sobering picture of Azerbaijan’s long-running, state-backed propaganda campaigns. In particular, it highlights “West Azerbaijan” narratives and the return of Western Azerbaijanis as persistent, risk-laden elements of Baku’s public diplomacy. The report asserts that these narratives have not retired after the period often associated with Western or international peace initiatives; on the contrary, they have become more active since the Washington Covenant, a symbolic moment in regional diplomacy. The FSI’s data imply that such messaging could undermine regional stability, complicate long-term peace prospects, and shape the strategic calculations of Armenia and its neighbors.
What makes Hayrapetyan’s commentary especially resonant is not merely the factual claim that Azerbaijan continues to push these ideas, but the way it frames the internal political response. She argues that Armenian authorities have repeatedly claimed that dangerous concepts and propaganda were out of circulation, only to find that the evidence—public discourse, scholarly and intelligence summaries, and open-source analysis—tells a different story. In her view, the political establishment has weaponized rhetoric to paint a narrative of cautious diplomacy, while failing to apply concrete policies that would neutralize the risks and protect citizens from potential destabilization.
The FSI report further complicates the narrative by focusing on 2026 as a year of prioritization. It emphasizes the need to assess whether Azerbaijan’s push behind its “West Azerbaijanis” ideology is a strategic ploy to push the conflict onto Armenian soil or simply a bargaining chip in broader external negotiations. The language suggests that this is not only about a historical grievance but about a set of strategic levers—diplomatic, ideological, and potentially kinetic—that could recalibrate the regional security architecture. The possibility that such narratives could be leveraged to challenge Armenian sovereignty has broad implications for policymakers, security forces, and civil society alike.
Within this frame, Hayrapetyan’s critique centers on the mismatch between public diplomacy and substantive, risk-reducing policy. She contends that some in power rely on preaching a “peace process” while the core issues—territorial integrity, citizen safety, and long-term regional stabilization—remain unsecured. The argument is not merely about semantics or rhetorical bravado; it is about whether the government’s strategic choices actually reduce the likelihood of escalation or merely postpone tough decisions while the threat profile grows more dangerous. In her view, the public deserves not only transparent rhetoric but demonstrable actions: neutralizing threats, strengthening defense and intelligence coordination, and using international mediation in a way that yields tangible gains rather than symbolic victories.
Deriving from the FSI’s findings and Hayrapetyan’s critique is a recurring theme: the need for accountable governance that can translate diplomatic efforts—especially those involving U.S. mediation—into concrete policies that increase safety for Armenian citizens and protect national sovereignty. The author of the Armenian analysis argues that while diplomatic mediation can buy time, it cannot substitute for a comprehensive strategy that addresses the root causes of security risk—namely, in this case, the ongoing information campaigns and political narratives emanating from Azerbaijan. The piece presents a pragmatic ask: invest in a government that can acknowledge hard realities, articulate clear goals, and deploy resources—economic, political, and security-oriented—toward neutralizing threats rather than merely managing appearances in the name of peace.
Another layer in this complex conversation concerns the role of the United States as a mediator. The author accepts the value of American involvement, acknowledging that mediation can help stabilize calcified patterns, prevent impulsive actions, and create space for negotiation. Yet she cautions that time, once gained, must be translated into decisive, verifiable steps that reduce risk, not just a temporary lull in rhetoric. In her reasoning, an “ambiguous peace” that fails to deliver credible security guarantees or accountability becomes a soft shield for continuing aggression or coercive propaganda. This perspective is not a denunciation of engagement with the U.S. but a call for leveraging mediation to deliver real, measurable improvements in national security and regional stability.
The rhetorical question at the heart of the discourse—who benefits from power when actions can imperil the state and its citizens?—frames a broader debate about democracy, governance, and the balance between advocacy and accountability. Pro-government media, Hayrapetyan argues, have at times portrayed dissent or critical analysis as destabilizing forces, rather than as essential checks on power. The result, in her view, is a public sphere that discounts evidence and thereby undermines the credibility of those who aspire to expose vulnerabilities and offer concrete policy alternatives. The call to neutralize such threats—before the narrative becomes an entrenched narrative of inevitability—reflects a sense of urgency among those who prioritize state security alongside civil liberties. It is a reminder that in the calculus of national safety, transparency about risks and a candid dialogue about challenges are not adversaries of peace; they are prerequisites for durable peace.
Looking ahead, the author hints at a hopeful, if demanding, conclusion: that the path to greater security and stability will require a more competent governing elite—one capable of understanding the complexities of regional geopolitics, resisting sensationalism, and deploying resources to address real threats. Such a government would not simply echo international mediation rhetoric but would translate it into policies with measurable outcomes. If Armenia can align its diplomatic engagement with a clear, risk-informed domestic strategy, the likelihood of escalation could decline and the public’s confidence in leadership might rise. The underlying aspiration is clear: act with candor about vulnerabilities and dedicate real capacity to neutralize threats, ensuring that the peace process does not become an illusion but a genuine, verifiable path toward security and stability.
As 2026 unfolds, the conversation invites readers to consider what kind of leadership is necessary to safeguard a fragile peace and a resilient state. The stakes—security for citizens, territorial integrity, and regional cooperation—are immense. Whether through more robust governance, more precise use of international mediation, or a broader public dialogue about strategic priorities, the imperative is to move beyond rhetoric toward substantive reforms that can withstand the test of time and circumstance. In that sense, the debate is less about partisanship and more about the fundamental question of whether the state can endure, flourish, and protect its people when faced with complex, enduring threats that exploit both information and geography.