Indeed, nothing seems to change with our geographic neighbors. The same set (some might call it an arsenal) of familiar clichés persists, with general statements offering no specifics when it comes to taking real steps toward signing a peace agreement with Azerbaijan. But that’s just one part of the issue. The second aspect lies in a familiar realm: constant wavering between different geopolitical directions.
For instance, Armenia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (FIS) described the likelihood of Yerevan freezing its participation in the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) as “unlikely” in a recent report. In response, however, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov countered the FIS statement, emphasizing that Yerevan “has not yet declared its intention to leave the organization.” In support of this point, during a recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Armenia’s Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan expressed Yerevan’s interest in “effective political dialogue with Moscow.”
Yet, as noted earlier, the vacillations haven’t gone anywhere. Thus, it’s unsurprising that while Mirzoyan was making conciliatory remarks during his conversation with Lavrov, the Speaker of Armenia’s National Assembly, Alen Simonyan, declared that Russia had “lost its role in the region regarding Armenia” due to “steps taken by Russia itself,” leaving Armenia “alone in the region.” According to Simonyan, Moscow should understand the “important role” of the EU mission in ensuring Armenia’s border security, a sentiment echoed by Armenia’s Security Council Secretary Armen Grigoryan on January 23, who expressed hope for the extension of the EU mission in Armenia.
Amidst all this, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan also entered the fray. During one of the panel discussions at the ongoing Davos Forum, he spoke about the “high likelihood” of Armenia’s parliament passing a law to initiate the process of joining the European Union, signaling the start of integration with the EU. Pashinyan justified this ambition with a resounding proclamation: “We are a democracy.” Naturally, following this seemingly straightforward statement came a loud overture (perhaps a diplomatic gesture) toward Moscow and Tehran: “While moving closer to the European Union, we are intensively trying to convey our position and share it with Iran and Russia.” Grigoryan also chimed in, stating that Armenia is building relations “with Brussels and Washington without harming the interests of third countries.”
Against this backdrop of “EU-Russia dynamics,” Armenia was graced with a visit from a delegation led by the Commander of the Kansas National Guard (USA), which held meetings at the country’s Ministry of Defense. During the discussions, the parties expressed interest in “expanding areas of cooperation.” Meanwhile, some Armenian experts noted the positive reaction of Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze to the signing of an executive order by former U.S. President Donald Trump on the “reassessment and regrouping of U.S. foreign aid.” According to Kobakhidze, “Funds from the U.S. were often used to undermine the sovereignty of other countries, something we spoke about and were criticized for in the past.”
In summary, Pashinyan’s team continues to follow the path outlined by the Armenian prime minister, as previously noted: “Independence means replacing dependence on a few with dependence on many.” In this light, the perspective of Armenian society on this issue becomes particularly interesting. As noted in a Telegram channel, “Everything about Nikol and his trademark demagoguery has long been clear. He addresses parliament not to solve problems or govern the country but for PR and shifting blame.” Another Armenian platform highlights the growing dissatisfaction, fueled by podcasts from the Pashinyan family and the prime minister’s lectures on every possible topic. The public has seen slogans evolve from “poverty in the mind” to the importance of hard work, and from “black and white narratives” to comments about “mama’s boys being spoon-fed by their parents and dodging military service.”
When it comes to Pashinyan’s “regular lessons for Armenia’s three million citizens on how to live and what to do,” the people of the “victorious revolution” witness daily the enrichment of Pashinyan’s circle, the rise in bonuses paid from taxpayer money, and the growing divide between ruling party officials and ordinary citizens. According to the same sources, “Pashinyan and his wife believe they know everything about everything and are trying to elevate the rest of the population to their level,” though “the public at large has long been ignoring Pashinyan’s speeches, as poverty increases and dissatisfaction grows.”
These are the prevailing sentiments in Armenian society, running parallel to the wavering of the country’s leadership. But so be it—this is their internal matter. We will simply conclude this analysis with a quote from Armen Grigoryan, who stated regarding the region’s situation, “We are not begging for peace; we are offering peaceful solutions to all existing issues.”
Fair enough. And we would gladly believe Mr. Grigoryan, if it weren’t for Armenia’s constitution containing direct territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Therefore, everything else on Armenia’s political stage is no more than populist rhetoric. This is clearly evident from Pashinyan’s remark in Davos: “I’m often asked if I’m an optimist or a pessimist. I reply—I’m a pragmatist. We must work until the issue is resolved.” This statement confirms the populism of official Yerevan—a populism devoid of clarity or specifics. Hence, as noted at the beginning, nothing seems to change with our geographic neighbors.
Teymur Atayev
