Op-ed by Vartan Oskanian, Armenia’s former foreign minister (1998-2008)
Few principles in history are as clear as this: a leader who presides over his nation’s crushing defeat cannot remain in power and expect to negotiate a lasting and just peace. Such a leader lacks the credibility, leverage, and moral authority to protect national interests in the aftermath of war. This reality has become increasingly evident in the case of Ukraine’s Zelensky, whose standing eroded as the war dragged on. However, it is even more compelling in the case of Armenia’s Nikol Pashinyan.
The scale of Armenia’s national tragedy under Pashinyan—and his direct responsibility for its unfolding—makes his continued leadership an insurmountable obstacle to any sustainable resolution with Azerbaijan. Leaders who suffer historic defeats must either step aside to allow for national recovery or risk becoming instruments of their adversaries. In Pashinyan’s case, his tenure has rendered Armenia a state incapable of asserting its interests or preserving its historical legacy.
Azerbaijan’s recent statements indicating a willingness to sign a peace deal “with the Armenian people” should serve as a wake-up call. This phrasing is not coincidental; it signals a key reality. Of course, it is a euphemism for saying that the Armenian people, through the ballot box, must change the constitution to eliminate all references to Nagorno-Karabakh. However, it is also Azerbaijan’s implicit acknowledgment that Pashinyan no longer truly represents the Armenian people. He remains in power not as a defender of national interests but as a conduit for external pressures—an enabler of constitutional and political changes designed to permanently erase Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia’s history and memory.
However, Azerbaijan must recognize that a genuine and enduring peace with the Armenian people is impossible as long as they continue to treat the peace process as a mere formality for imposing terms of surrender. Their strategy of pressuring Pashinyan to implement their preferred version of “peace” only prolongs instability. True reconciliation—one that is mutually acceptable and sustainable—requires broadening the negotiation agenda to include essential issues necessary for restoring justice to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.
If the Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations had received the same level of international attention and scrutiny as the war in Ukraine, it is certain that Pashinyan would be facing the same calls currently directed at Zelensky. Both Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have dismissed Zelensky’s legitimacy and called for elections, signaling their desire for a new leader with whom they can negotiate. Within Ukraine too, Zelensky’s support is unraveling for the very same reason. Just yesterday, Ukraine’s parliament struggled—only succeeding on its second attempt—to pass a resolution reaffirming his legitimacy. This unmistakable sign of his weakening authority reflects a growing desire of the representatives of the people of Ukraine for a change in leadership.
Similarly, Pashinyan’s presence at the negotiating table guarantees an outcome that the Armenian people will neither trust nor accept. As calls grow for Zelensky to step down in Ukraine for the sake of reaching a peaceful resolution and ensuring the country’s future stability, we must all—including Azerbaijan—recognize that real and durable peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can only be achieved with new leadership in Yerevan. A leader so thoroughly associated with national decline cannot be the one to secure a durable peace.
The post Azerbaijan’s call for peace “with the Armenian people” should be a wake-up signal appeared first on CIVILNET.
