Deputy Foreign Minister of Armenia, Paruyr Hovhannisyan, met with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Verma, the head of the EU delegation in Armenia Vassilis Maragos, and the U.S., Indian, and French ambassadors to Yerevan. Richard Verma reported on X: “A warm and productive meeting with like-minded diplomats and Armenian officials to discuss Armenia’s growing role on the world stage. Together, we strive to contribute to regional stability and security. Here’s to future partnerships and shared prosperity!”
It is curious how an American high-ranking diplomat plans to “contribute to regional stability and security” by calling the ambassadors of India and France—countries from which Armenia is begging for offensive weapons—”like-minded diplomats.” These countries are playing a provocative game in the South Caucasus, fanning the flames of a new war.
But there is something more important. The meeting in Yerevan, judging by many signs, is one of those where Western diplomats give “valuable guidance” to representatives of countries willing to be tools of foreign policies. In the context of the South Caucasus, this has its own interpretation. Armenia is not just a classic example of a “colony by choice.” Here, there is a fascination with hiring oneself out for political services, whether to Russia, France, or someone else, hoping to gain others’ territories as dividends.
Before and during World War I, Armenian dealers eagerly hired themselves out for political services to the Entente countries, ready to do their “dirty work” in the hope that their masters would present them with Turkish Eastern Anatolia on a silver platter. The result has been something they’ve been crying over for more than a hundred years, and this is not a figure of speech. In the 1990s, at the time of the USSR’s collapse, Armenia took on the role of “Moscow’s outpost”—the price of love was supposed to be Azerbaijan’s Karabakh.
One would think that today, after two defeats—in the 44-day war and during the anti-terrorist raids of September 2023—Armenia should wise up. To use their brains. And realize that the attempt to start a “new war for new territories” will end badly for Armenia.
But in practice, Yerevan is once again returning to its old strategy—licking the boots of “big daddies” in the hope that they will help “long-suffering Armenia” capture others’ territories and thus repay it for loyalty.
Of course, the responsibility also lies with these “daddies” for flirting with Yerevan before the peace treaty is signed and for playing on revanchist sentiments in particular. But primarily, the responsibility for the already begun round of militarization in the region lies with Armenia itself.
And now—a bit of reality. The kind of reality that many in the expert community prefer not to notice. Or rather, “look the other way.”
Yes, in Yerevan, they love to talk about their commitment to peace and the desire to sign a peace treaty with Azerbaijan. But at the same time, they do not show any willingness to cleanse their constitution of territorial claims to other countries, including Azerbaijan. It is unnecessary to remind that as long as the preamble to the Armenian constitution contains a decision on the “Anschluss” of Karabakh, any peace treaty will simply be meaningless. And as long as this reference to “Anschluss” is in the constitution, it is a sure sign that claims to Karabakh have not been removed from Yerevan’s agenda.
Yerevan consistently torpedoes all real peace initiatives in the region. It disrupts already reached agreements. And repeatedly attempts military revenge. The purchase of offensive weapons from France—CAESAR self-propelled guns—is a link in the same chain. And, of course, Yerevan’s provocative diplomacy plays its role, where, on the one hand, the myth of the “Azerbaijani threat” is regularly inflated, and on the other, many signs indicate Armenia’s preparations for new territorial seizures. Yerevan is working on this quite consistently: seeking allies, buying weapons, regularly pulling troops to the border, testing reactions, and forcing events, hoping that Azerbaijan has not yet sufficiently strengthened on the lands liberated from Armenian occupation, and new aggressive raids may succeed.
As a “cherry on top,” Pashinyan was declared a “dove of peace” back in the spring of 2018, in the wake of his “barbecue revolution.” But this “dove of peace” image did not prevent the “barbecue prime minister” from moving Araik Harutyunyan’s “inauguration” to Shusha, building a “parliament” building for separatists there, shouting “Karabakh is Armenia, period,” and organizing drunken dances in Shusha.
Now Yerevan, judging by many signs, is again starting a “dance with sabers,” this time imported not from Russia but from France. And this is not the case where Baku will benevolently watch the “small pranks of neighbors.” If Armenia’s policy does not transition to a peaceful agenda in the near future, if Yerevan continues its revanchist games, and its allies do not hurry to rein in their “ward,” a new war in the region, unfortunately, will become inevitable. Azerbaijan will be forced to ensure its security by harsh methods where soft and diplomatic ones do not work. So Armenia will have to pay for its revanchism—if they do not use their heads in time.
As for the allies… perhaps Yerevan should remember how many times various allies have “betrayed” Armenia? And how many times those whom it considers its patrons today have betrayed their satellites?
