Armenian premier`s peace model based on logic of constant surrenders, not on reciprocal commitments - expert
ArmInfo. A model of permanent capitulation is being observed in Armenia. Political scientist Suren Surenyants writes about this in his article.
According to him, during a meeting with representatives of the Armenian community in St. Petersburg, RA Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated that the government had fulfilled its "greatest promise" to the people to usher in an era of peaceful development for Armenia and the region. In the government program, adopted in August 2021, the political scientist recalled, the "era of peaceful development" was presented as a meaningful and purposeful peace. This implied not only the cessation of hostilities but also the continuation of a political solution to the Artsakh issue, the restoration of the security system, and the protection of state interests.
"During that period, government discourse contained direct or indirect references to possible scenarios for the de-occupation of Shushi and Hadrut, as well as the independence of Artsakh, even citing the Kosovo precedent. Today, the same formulation is used in a completely different sense. 'Peace' is defined as relative silence on the border, unconstrained by institutional agreements, legal obligations, or international guarantees. There is no peace treaty, the demarcation and demarcation processes are not complete, and Azerbaijan constantly puts forward new demands, directly linking them to the signing of the treaty. The fact that there is currently no shooting on the border does not in itself constitute peace if this state of affairs is achieved through unilateral concessions. In this situation, the enemy has effectively gained almost everything (including Artsakh) and simultaneously retained complete freedom to put forward new demands," Sureniants noted.
He added that the peace model presented by Pashinyan is built not on mutual obligations, a balance of power, and deterrence mechanisms, but on the logic of constant retreats. "This isn't a classical peace, but a model of constant capitulation, in which the state gradually loses its negotiating agency, and society is presented with a political illusion, shaped by the name 'peace.' If by 'the era of peaceful development' we understand adaptation to the post-war reality at the expense of state and national interests, then this approach can be presented as a fulfilled promise. However, if the promise referred to a dignified, stable, and institutionalized peace, then not only was it not fulfilled, but it was effectively replaced by final capitulation," the political scientist emphasized.