Since the end of the 44-day war in November 2020, there has been a faint hope that the leadership of our neighboring country, which had long occupied part of our territory and ultimately suffered a catastrophic defeat in the war, would finally come to its senses and shift its regional doctrine from an expansionist one, aimed at enlarging its borders, to one of good neighborliness.
In the very first days after the signing of the Trilateral Statement, there were still statements containing a tone of justification for their occupation (and even pride in it) with not even a hint of regret for everything that had happened and how it all ended. We remember the words of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, spoken on the day he signed the de facto capitulation: “This is not a victory, but there will be no defeat as long as you do not recognize yourself as defeated.” From these words, it was clear that the head of the government did not feel regret for what had happened. If we translate his convoluted words (which we suspect were sometimes unclear even to him) into plain language, they would sound something like this: “Yes, we occupied Azerbaijani lands, and we did the right thing. We do not consider ourselves wrong, nor do we consider ourselves defeated.”
These words might be explained by the faint hope that in the future, the situation could be reversed and everything lost could be restored, or even new territories could be gained in a new war, as threatened by the currently imprisoned former Armenian Minister of Defense David Tonoyan. This hope in Pashinyan’s heart was also fueled by the clause in the statement he signed that day, which mentioned the deployment of a Russian peacekeeping contingent (RPC) in Karabakh and the transfer of control over the Lachin corridor to the Russians. In other words, he thought that what had been retained would never be lost, and what had been lost could be regained in the future, once they started producing their own drones and giving them some names (like “Nemesis” or “Miatsum”).
This is not an exaggeration. Similar appeals were heard in the media of the defeated country at that time.
The realization that things were not as they seemed in dreams came a little later, with sharp statements from official Baku regarding the visits of uninvited guests to the still unliberated part of Karabakh, as well as one-day sobering operations at various points along both the line of contact in Karabakh and the conditional Armenian-Azerbaijani border.
After these “reminders from the sky,” the authorities in Yerevan began to understand that they should abandon their hopes for a revenge, though the opposition still refuses to do so to this day, but that is a separate topic. The leadership of Armenia began to understand that it was all over, that Karabakh was lost forever, and that the RPC was deployed there temporarily, as official Baku liked to emphasize.
It then became clear that the phrase uttered by Pashinyan on the day he signed the capitulation act was said hastily. That is, it is a defeat, and it is time to recognize it.
The signing of the statement in Prague in early October, which referred to the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration, marked the formal renunciation by Yerevan of Karabakh and its recognition of it as the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan.
From this moment, the political leadership of Armenia had the opportunity (still not fully utilized) to demonstrate the sincerity of their newly declared position in practice. However, from then until now, we have not seen this. Yes, we hear repeated statements about official Yerevan’s recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity within its Soviet borders, including the Karabakh region. But individual antics of Pashinyan’s government members, including the Prime Minister himself, cast doubt on the sincerity of these statements.
There are many examples, and there is no need to list them one by one now. Let us recall only Nikol Pashinyan’s trip to Brussels on April 5 and his meetings with officials from the U.S. State Department and the European Commission, where the rearmament of his country was discussed. The question is, against whom, given that Armenia has only four neighbors? The answer is obvious.
Or let’s remember the trip of the Armenian Prime Minister to Copenhagen this week and his meeting with Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the founder of the international political consulting organization “Rasmussen Global,” who, it is no secret, has been on a monthly paycheck from Yerevan. We clearly remember the anti-Azerbaijani tweets and various statements from the former NATO Secretary General. It is quite clear that, without being paid, this Dane would have little concern for the issues of the distant Caucasus.
Or take the absolutely comical and thoroughly scandalous figure of the former ICC prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo, who, naturally, is also financially supported by Yerevan.
The question arises, if Nikol Pashinyan intends to move towards peace, why does he need such odious figures, and why does he meet with them? For what purpose?
All these actions of Pashinyan indicate the insincerity of his statements about his commitment to peace. Speaking of trust in such conditions is completely ridiculous.
We see everything and assess it adequately. Our preemptive actions are adequate and taken with cold calculation. If Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan wants his assurances to be taken seriously, he should not give reasons for doubt. And he has left, as they say, a whole wagonload of them!
Aziza Lalaeva
Translated from minval.az
