The issue of Karabakh and the ideology of “miatsum” that arose from it quickly gained popularity, not only among the masses but also among the elites. The leaders of the Greater Armenia movement, captivated by astronomical ambitions, failed to realize that they were stepping onto thin ice. The dangerous path of militarism intertwined with terrorism led the brainwashed masses to a predictable dead end—a fatal strategic miscalculation.
However, the perpetrators of this national tragedy continue to defend their stance, refusing to acknowledge their mistakes. They persist in convincing society of the inevitability of continuing the fight for illusory ideas. There is no talk of enlightenment or repentance yet, but there is widespread debate about why previous leaders and the community failed to recognize the occupied Karabakh.
On the stage of political manipulation, current ideologues clash with their predecessors, incessantly firing accusations at each other, pointing out systemic errors. Taking a step back and assessing the arguments of all sides reveals that collectively, they are engaged in dissecting unforgivable delusions and mad dreams.
The tradition of illusory thinking has become so entrenched in the Armenian political environment that its detachment from reality goes unnoticed.
One cannot overlook how the search for culprits in the defeats of 2020-2023 has become a norm, plunging everyone into a mire of extreme obstructionism with no apparent way out. They struggle to admit that the decision made at the end of the last century to seize Azerbaijani territories was disastrous, not only for the ruling elites but for the entire national community.
Some individuals, endowed with rational thinking, saw the futility of the proclaimed course. They even warned against recklessness, suggesting a path of compromise. However, the majority of ultra-patriots and staunch nationalists advocated for a military solution.
In the context of the arguments and complaints presented, several characteristics typical of the Armenian mindset stand out.
Some figures claim that everyone is to blame for the defeat in the Second Karabakh War: the old authorities, the new ones, and society as a whole. However, they would not be Armenians if they did not also implicate external actors. There is a belief that the regional countries share responsibility for the defeat, but it is not clarified what their obligations were. At the same time, there is reluctance to acknowledge that the first war was won with external support and that the victory was essentially handed to Armenia.
The most ardent proponents of the idea of Karabakh’s self-determination lament the fact that after the “victory” of the early 1990s, a “free Karabakh” never appeared on serious world maps as an independent state. Referring to it as a “young South Caucasian entity,” these ideological fighters even blame others, questioning why previous leaders did not dare to recognize its independence.
Had Armenia recognized Karabakh’s independence, Azerbaijan would have immediately crushed the aggressor. The fear and indecision of Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan prevented them from taking this fatal step. Nikol Pashinyan dared to declare, “Karabakh is Armenia, period,” and paid the price—for himself and his “great” predecessors. But this is not the essence of the intrigue.
Anyone even slightly rational who voices the truth about recent events is immediately labeled an enemy of the people. Amid speculations about the role of the Minsk Group, the positions of the conflicting sides, and the sympathies of international diplomacy, officials recall how Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev was explicit about his country’s stance and firmly pointed out the corruption of mediators. Speaking openly, he stated that “behind closed doors, Azerbaijan was being pressured to recognize the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh.” Even then, Baku consistently maintained that it would reclaim its lands, if not peacefully, then through military means. Has this been forgotten?
This confirms the strength of Azerbaijani diplomacy, which avoided concessions and prevented Yerevan from seizing the initiative. This is why neither Armenia, nor the Minsk Group, nor third parties managed to impose their will on Azerbaijan’s leadership. The aspirations for Karabakh’s self-determination never gained solid ground, and President Aliyev ensured that the unresolved territorial issue would not be passed on to future generations.
Certain Armenian know-it-alls, seemingly struck by historical amnesia, promote an inflated thesis that “Azerbaijan is far from civilized, and dialogue based on international law is impossible with it.” They accuse Nikol Pashinyan of idealism, claiming he hopes for success through diplomacy.
It is unnecessary to delve into the history of the early 20th century to assess Armenia’s “civilization.” Drawing a few parallels is enough to highlight the evident moral and willful qualities of the conflict’s participants.
Can the horrific deportation of 300,000 Azerbaijanis from Armenia be compared to the voluntary departure of Armenians from Karabakh? Certainly not. Azerbaijanis were forced to abandon their ancestral homes under the barrels of guns, subjected to the cruelty of barbarians who humiliated and mutilated women and children and injured innocent civilians. In contrast, Armenians from Karabakh left Azerbaijani territory in an organized manner without facing humiliation or insults. They were even offered the chance to stay, but they said they were ordered to leave by the illegal separatist authorities.
Armenians committed a horrific genocide in Khojaly, criminally killing over 613 people in one night. Meanwhile, the Azerbaijani army, during its anti-terrorist operations on the night of September 19–20, 2023, against heavily armed Armenian militants, did not harm civilians or civilian structures. Such comparisons reveal the stark differences in the level of “civilization” between the two nations, requiring neither cultural experts nor historians.
Those vehemently arguing that Armenians cannot live within Azerbaijan should recall the fierce hatred, bordering on savagery, that fueled Turkophobia and the deep-seated enmity toward Azerbaijanis. Armenian “civilization,” both then and now, as Azerbaijanis seek to return to Western Zangezur, reveals its true nature.
In his New Year address to the Azerbaijani people, Ilham Aliyev, commenting on the regional situation, highlighted the new realities created through Baku’s consistent steps and actions.
“The Patriotic War created these realities,” the head of state said. “The restoration of our state sovereignty further strengthened them, and we have solidified the new realities we established in the South Caucasus in the diplomatic, international, and political arenas. The whole world has accepted these new realities.”
The messages from the leader of the victorious nation are also directed at Armenians, who harbor revanchist intentions, forgetting the lessons of recent years. President Aliyev emphasized: “The large-scale campaign to arm Armenia is another source of threat to the region. If we talk about the most troubling aspect for us this year, it is undoubtedly Armenia’s armament. There is no logical explanation for this. Armenia’s policy of aggression has been a total failure… I have repeatedly warned them, both in my official statements and during our negotiations with the Armenian side, to avoid the dangerous path. The foreign circles and overseas countries inciting them to attack Azerbaijan again will not back them; they simply cannot.”
If anyone needs to embrace reason and logic, it is the Armenian public and political elite, who bear responsibility not only for their country’s future but for the entire region.
The messages from the leader of the victorious nation are also directed at Armenians, who nurture revanchist intentions, forgetting the lessons of recent years.
President Aliyev clarified: “The large-scale campaign to arm Armenia represents another source of threat to the region. If we consider the most troubling moment for us this year, it is undoubtedly Armenia’s armament. There is no logical explanation for this. Armenia’s policy of aggression has suffered a complete collapse… I have repeatedly warned them, both in my official statements and during our negotiations with the Armenian side, to avoid the dangerous path. The foreign circles and overseas countries provoking them to attack Azerbaijan again will not back them; they simply cannot.”
If anyone needs to embrace reason and logic, it is the Armenian public and political elite, who bear responsibility for the future not only of their country but of the entire region.
A new era has begun, and Azerbaijan is full of strength and determination to achieve a peaceful transformation of the South Caucasus. Those who are dissatisfied with this must think a hundred times before taking action. It is no coincidence that the head of the Azerbaijani state reminded: “No force can compete with Azerbaijan in the military sphere.”
Those who desire more than they deserve are doomed to failure. It is time for Armenians to master the art of adapting to changing circumstances. Otherwise, the consequences will be to their own detriment. Azerbaijan stands confident in itself and wishes goodwill and peace to all. It demonstrates the ability to be useful—a trait of immense value.
Tofig Abbasov
