ARMENIAN CRUSADE

Almaty, the former capital of Kazakhstan, hosted negotiations between the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia, Jeyhun Bayramov and Ararat Mirzoyan. The talks concluded without the signing of any documents, indicating that no breakthrough agreements were reached. Nevertheless, the ministers expressed optimism after the meeting, with Mirzoyan even expressing a desire to broaden the topics and advance the issue of opening communications.

Until November 9, 2020, Azerbaijani territories were under Armenian occupation, leaving about a million refugees and internally displaced persons unable to return to their ancestral homes. Now, Azerbaijan has restored its territorial integrity, and the country no longer has reasons to make unwarranted concessions or seek peace at any cost.

This understanding is also evident in Yerevan. For instance, consider the transfer of four previously occupied villages in the Gazakh district to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, speaking in Shusha, emphasized: "Today, it was enough for us to demand, without resorting to any other means, four villages of Gazakh to have them returned to us. They were returned by my single demand, and so it must continue. We have the right to speak here. We are the leading state in the Caucasus in terms of our economic, political, military, and other potential, and everyone must take account of us. Both Armenia and external circles backing it, which give false promises, will regret it if they do not consider us."

However, not everyone reflects on these words, or they do but hope that the war will not reach them, as protests against the delimitation and demarcation of borders persist in Armenia.

'Border passions' on the streets of Yerevan

Initially, the Yerevan administration remained composed and tolerated local protests against the transfer of four villages to Azerbaijan. However, the situation shifted when Archbishop Bagrat Srbazan emerged as the new leader of the protesters, leading a procession to Yerevan. The current head of the Armenian government found himself confronting his own tactics.

Let's revisit the infamous "barbecue revolution," which catapulted Pashinyan into the prime minister's position. It began with a walking tour of the districts, grandiosely named My Step by the current prime minister. While gathering million-strong rallies in the districts seemed impossible without mobilizing crowds or support groups, the conclusion of My Step in Yerevan held significance for everyone.

On May 9, the archbishop-led procession arrived in Yerevan—a date not coincidental. While the entire post-Soviet space recognises May 9 as Victory Day over Hitler's Germany, in Armenia, it marks the anniversary of the occupation of the city of Shusha. Until 2020, this day was celebrated as the day of victory in Garabagh.

The 2018 rallies were indeed more massive, but this one also garnered significant attention within the Pashinyan administration, even after their defeat in the 44-day war. Archbishop Bagrat Srbazan demanded Pashinyan's resignation, yet the latter did not comply. In response, protesters blocked streets and engaged in acts of civil disobedience.

Opinions diverge on the severity of the threat posed by these street actions to Pashinyan. By May 11-12, many experts observed a loss of momentum among the protesters. Their lack of a clear program of actions and absence of a specific candidate for the premiership—beyond the slogan "Nikol, leave!"—contributed to this perception.

However, the potential risk to Armenia's current authorities should not be underestimated. Apart from the opposition, the influential Armenian church and the foreign diaspora have openly opposed Pashinyan. Unlike political figures or parties, the church—imbued with significant financial resources—cannot be easily subjected to counter-propaganda or dissolved by court decisions. Its historical role in Armenian politics remains pivotal. The fact that the Armenian Gregorian Church refused to abolish the Artsakh diocese created after the occupation of Azerbaijani lands speaks for itself.

Moreover, the presence of military personnel among the protesters adds another layer of concern for Pashinyan and his government.

"The Man with a Gun"

Military intervention in politics indeed carries significant risks, often leading to instability and even a potential coup. The involvement of servicemen in protest actions can be a double-edged sword, as demonstrated by the recent events in Armenia.

During the 2018 "barbecue revolution," Armenian peacekeeping brigade servicemen joined the protesters, a move that may have unwittingly opened Pandora's box. The military, having tasted political decision-making, won't easily forget this experience. Although we currently discuss only two officers who made penitential speeches on camera, the prime minister's relations with the military leadership remain strained.

Since taking office, Nikol Pashinyan has initiated anti-corruption purges in the army, seeking to remove Garabaghians from military leadership positions. His clashes with the then-acting CSTO Secretary General Yuri Khachaturov further strained relations. Additionally, court proceedings against officers following the 44-day war have caused resentment within the officer corps.

High pro-Russian sentiments persist in the Armenian army. Moscow, despite tolerating Pashinyan after his revolution, now faces Russian propagandists of Armenian origin openly opposing him.

Pashinyan's recent attempts to introduce Western influence, particularly from France, into the army have raised eyebrows. France, with its history of instigating military coups in Africa, has its own interests in Armenia's domestic political landscape, notably supporting the Dashnaktsutyun party.

The games being played against Pashinyan within the officer corps remain speculative. Armenia previously weathered a farcical coup attempt when Chief of the General Staff Onik Gasparyan called for Pashinyan's resignation. However, this time, the situation may unfold differently, potentially posing a more hazardous scenario.

Terrorists are dangerous for everyone

In Armenia, a concerning cult of terror persists, with Ambik Sasunyan—a recently released professional terrorist from an American prison—now residing in Armenia. He is not alone; Archbishop Bagrat can rely on support from groups like Sasna Tsrer, led by Jirair Sefilian.

Terrorism has been deemed an acceptable method of struggle in Armenia. Notably, the anti-Pashinyan opposition, including figures like Robert Kocharyan, has actively employed this approach. Under Serzh Sargsyan's leadership, terrorist conspiracies were repeatedly exposed.

In 1991, Kazakhstan and Russia initiated mediation efforts in Garabagh. The Zheleznovodsk initiative proposed a peacekeeping mission, but Armenia staunchly opposed it. A significant terrorist act halted the negotiations: on November 20, 1991, a Mi-8 military helicopter was downed near Karakend, carrying senior state officials from Azerbaijan, along with Russian and Kazakh observers. While Armenia cannot down aircraft and helicopters in Azerbaijan's skies today, internal terrorist acts remain a possibility.

However, disrupting the border delimitation and demarcation process through such means poses risks. Experts believe that if Pashinyan is removed, the new government may be less accommodating. Yet, playing with fire at the border is a suicidal hazard for Armenia itself. The balance of power after the 44-day war and the defeat of the 15,000-strong Armenian Armed Forces contingent does not favour Yerevan, regardless of the next prime minister's identity.