Pashinyan Attempts To Blame Russia For The Situation He Helped Create In Nagorno-Karabakh

Click to see the full-size image

Written by Ahmed Adel, Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, the Prime Minister of Armenia who oversaw a humiliating defeat in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War of 2020, delivered a speech on September 24 claiming that he is leading Armenia’s “independence defence movement” and blamed Russia for the situation in the disputed region.

Describing the terrible humanitarian situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, Pashinyan said,

“The responsibility for such a development of events will fall entirely on Azerbaijan, which has adopted the policy of ethnic cleansing, and on the peacekeeping troops of the Russian Federation in Nagorno-Karabakh”.

The Armenian prime minister is propagating a fake narrative to distract from any criticism of his policies and actions that have led to the rapid capitulation of Nagorno-Karabakh in the face of Azerbaijani aggression, which is also occupying territories belonging to the Republic of Armenia, not in the disputed region.

Pashinyan first set the trap for the Armenian people five years ago in the context of the Velvet Revolution when he announced that either he would be the prime minister or Armenia would not have a prime minister. Even as recently as September 24, in his infamous speech, Pashinyan said:

“I am the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia. Therefore, I lead the independence defence movement […] the future of Armenia depends on one person and that one person is me.”

Effectively, Pashinyan is pushing the narrative that either he will remain the prime minister, or there will be no Armenia.

His speech was very dangerous in all aspects as it served to sever further the ties that Russia and Armenia have. He also said nothing about how his diplomacy brought the Caucasian country to this desperate situation.

Rather, Pashinyan’s speech was signalling to the West that Yerevan is moving very aggressively in breaking its ties with Russia. This is an especially dangerous manoeuvre since Armenia, quite obviously, is not in the Alps of Europe with states like Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Austria neighbouring each other, but rather in a very dangerous Caucasus that has been a crossroads of trade, religion, and battle for thousands of years. This region has become more dangerous because Pashinyan attempts to change his country’s alliances and strategic thinking without securing any guarantee from any Western country, including France, which only encourages Azerbaijan to take action.

Moscow must be careful not to overplay the Turkish-Azeri card because NATO views Turkey as a way to subvert and weaken Russian and Chinese cultural and economic influence in Central Asia. For this reason, the Atlantic Alliance fully supports Turkey’s vision of becoming the hegemon of Central Asia.

Although the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is now seemingly resolved, Azerbaijan and Turkey are already pushing for the opening of the “Zangezur Corridor,” a transportation corridor which would give Azerbaijan unimpeded access to its detached Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, which borders Turkey, via Armenia’s Syunik Province and without Armenian checkpoints – effectively a loss of sovereignty to Armenia’s only border region with Iran. Creating such a corridor would connect Turkey to the rest of the Turkic world, which would be a far greater threat to Russian interests than what a small, weak, and liberal Armenia is.

Regarding security, Armenia has every right to expand its partnerships and cooperate with more countries. However, it was unnecessary to achieve this by pursuing an aggressively anti-Moscow policy. Take the case of India, in which Russia was traditionally and still is the South Asian country’s main weapons supplier. India has entered weapon manufacturing agreements with Russia but still purchases weapons from France and the US. New Delhi gained favour with the West without provoking Russia, unlike Pashinyan, who still has not received any guarantees from his so-called Western partners.

All the former leaders of Armenia conducted a balanced foreign policy by increasing the number of allies and limiting the number of enemies as much as possible. Now, under Pashinyan, there is a crisis in Armenian-Russian relations, Armenia is without Western allies, and all signals point to Azerbaijan extending its aggression until the Zangezur Corridor is opened.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

• How Pashinyan Betrayed Armenia For A US Pat On The Back And A Snoop Dogg Concert
• Pashinyan Says Armenia Did Not Help Draft Karabakh Ceasefire Agreement
• What Could South Caucasus Look Like In Post-Artsakh Era