As parliamentary elections approach in Armenia, political rhetoric is growing increasingly harsh. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan spoke quite explicitly on one of the most sensitive issues in the pre-election debate — the question of war and peace — directly accusing the opposition of pursuing a line that effectively leads to a new military conflict.
According to the prime minister, his political opponents claim they are not against peace, yet if they come to power, they intend to revise the agreements that have already been reached. He issued a clear warning: “I want to state directly: this is war.” Suggesting that some opposition statements may be shaped outside the country, with politicians merely voicing prepared texts, Pashinyan noted that such a position effectively amounts to revising peace — something that could lead to a new escalation in the coming months, possibly as early as autumn. Most importantly, he warned of a scenario involving a “September war” with severe consequences for the country.
Let us deliberately set aside discussions about possible external sponsors of a new war — this is a separate, complex, and highly sensitive topic where assumptions and theories often outweigh facts. However, one reality cannot be ignored: many representatives of the opposition are promising Armenian voters “better peace terms.” In particular, such promises have been voiced by Robert Kocharyan.
Of course, there are few politicians willing, like Sir Winston Churchill, to openly tell voters: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat,” and to add that the course is to wage war by sea, land, and air with full strength. Few people are eager to vote for war; mobilization, casualties, and funerals are not something easily “sold” to an electorate. But wrapping a future war in attractive packaging — speaking not of war but of “better peace terms” — is a far more effective form of electoral “phishing.”
However, electoral competition is one thing; real politics is another. If revanchist forces come to power, they will inevitably become prisoners of their own promises to secure “better peace terms” for Armenia. At that point, entirely different realities emerge — including those rarely discussed openly in global politics. After all the strong rhetoric, simply signing agreements that were branded “treacherous” throughout the campaign would be risky. Their own electorate may not accept it. Moreover, the revanchist camp itself is far from unified, and there will be those ready to capitalize on any internal dissatisfaction.
Breaking a previously initialed peace agreement would be even more dangerous. In that case, responsibility for undermining the peace process would fall on Yerevan, with all the consequences that entails. Furthermore, the agreement was initialed during negotiations in the United States, meaning Washington would also have its say. Finally, peace agreements are almost always built on the outcomes of war — and to revise them, revanchists coming to power may indeed attempt to provoke new clashes.
This is where illusions should be set aside. The political cost of a renewed escalation against Azerbaijan would be entirely different under current conditions. Moreover, Baku would have clear grounds to respond. Given the current military balance in the region, a new confrontation would not end well for Armenia — especially since its potential allies are already entangled in their own conflicts.
To be frank, Armenia did not receive the expected military support either in 2020 or in 2023. It is even less likely to receive such support if revanchist forces come to power, derail the peace process, and provoke a new conflict. In this sense, Pashinyan’s warning about severe consequences for Armenia is far from unfounded.
Nurani
