WHO’S BEHIND THE TURMOIL IN ARMENIA?

The return of Lachin, as well as the villages of Zabukh and Sus to Azerbaijani control remains the main thrust of political turmoil in the region. As expected, these events echoed loudly on the Armenian political arena as well.

Lachin and the villages of Zabukh and Sus were occupied by Armenia in 1992 in violation of all norms of international law. The recent event should therefore be interpreted as the restoration of order, security and recognised borders, rather than 'territorial losses of Armenia'. But the revanchists in Yerevan do not want to deal with such subtleties. They accuse Nikol Pashinian and his supporters of capitulation, surrender of lands and so on.

Ishkhan Saghatelyan, leader of local Dashnaks, who is gaining popularity as one of the prominent figures marching in front of the rallies, openly threatens security forces: "You are personally responsible for the surrender of Berdzor, Akhavno (Armenian names for Lachin and Zabukh), Shusha and other Armenian settlements and territories. You were and still are the only pillars and custodians of Pashinyan’s power. You can no longer say 'I serve the Republic of Armenia': you only serve this anti-Armenian power and the cause of entrenching a dictatorship in the country." Saghatelyan called the authorities to ‘come to senses’ and not to equate themselves with Edmond Marukyan and Alain Simonyan. He also called the Armenian citizens to continue their struggle ‘for the sake of Armenia, for Artsakh, for our generations’.

Revanchists vs. the Party of Peace?

Saghatelyan's appeal is seemingly classical: revanchists against the so-called Party of Peace represented by Nikol Pashinyan and his associates, that is—Edmond Marukyan and Alain Simonyan. However, it is still debatable whether Pashinian and his circle can be considered a Party of Peace. The regular disruption of the negotiation process, the inauguration of Araik Harutyunyan in Shusha, statements such as Garabagh is Armenia, full stop!, and, finally, the 44-day war unleashed by Pashinyan and his team, including the missile attacks on peaceful Azerbaijani cities raise serious doubts about peaceful intentions of Pashinyan and his aversion to ‘bad revanchists’. Moreover, even after Armenia's defeat in the Patriotic War, it is Pashinyan and his supporters who systematically hamper the post-conflict settlement process trying to evade their obligations under the trilateral statement signed on November 10, 2020.

Just before the return of Lachin, Zabukh and Sus to Azerbaijan, Pashinian's team launched a repression campaign against the real party of peace with Azerbaijan—political scientist Ishkhan Verdyan and civil society activist Vahe Ghambaryan, who are prepared to recognise Azerbaijan's sovereignty over Garabagh. Armenian authorities accuse them of nothing less than treason and collaboration with the ‘enemy intelligence services’.

Amid the exchange of pleasantries between the supporters of Pashinian and revanchists, even many staunch opponents of the ‘surrender’ seriously ask what would Pashinian's opponents do if they came to power? Do they have a real chance of turning the situation in Armenia's favour? Or will the changes be limited to the shuffling of government seats only? Responding to accusations of capitulation, Pashinian's team reveals details of the negotiations conducted by his predecessors, i.e. the so-called Garabagh Clan.

Perhaps this is why, even amid Lachin's ‘surrender’, the Yerevan opposition still fails to catch the wave of popular protest.

Opposition lost the street

During another rally in Yerevan, the local security forces have detained, albeit rather harshly, the Russian blogger Romanov. However, the event did not take the expected number of people to the streets, despite the ongoing talks about the impending ‘surrender of lands’.

Well, one can blame the summer heat, holiday season, etc. But is this the only reason of failure?

Experts claim that citizens react to events such as the loss of territories either in the first hours and days, or remain hopeful that the issue will re-emerge the next time, if ever. Indeed, the signing of the November 10 trilateral statement and Armenia's capitulation cause street unrest in Yerevan. Protesters even stormed the parliament and stole a perfume, a computer and a driving licence from Pashinyan’s office. But Pashinyan managed to win early parliamentary elections despite his defeat in the war. Even then, experts and political analysts said that the Armenian people were tired of war. Also, those in the streets of Yerevan, Gyumri and Vanadzor clearly saw that the war was not only about "attack, escape, robbery and occupation of homes". The territorial balance can also change to the disadvantage of Armenia. Finally, it is important that Armenians would rather sacrifice Garabagh than bring the Garabagh Clan back to power. Despite the Yerevan opposition’s emotional reaction to the deeds of Pashinyan the Faintheart, can they offer to their potential supporters anything beyond 'let Pashinian go and we will come back' slogan?

In his interview with Sputnik Armenia, which clearly favours the local revanchists, political scientist Armen Badalyan explicitly stated that the opposition lacked creativity.

Theoretically, Ishkhan Saghatelyan seems to be promising a new programme and new ideas. But what exactly is the Armenian opposition going to change in its strategy? There are no visible new leaders. There is no hope for new ideas after Pashinyan's "kebab revolution" either. But will the opposition surrender without a fight, both literally and figuratively, given that Pashinyan is building a regime of his personal dictatorship in Armenia and will not even theoretically forgive the Garabagh Clan for the ongoing attacks on him?

Should we expect terror?

The threat of Armenian politics opting for military option is still there. Take, for example, the explosion at the Surmalu market on August 14, claiming the lives of sixteen people and leaving over fifty injured. Armenian authorities declared two days of mourning. An investigation is under way, but Yerevan has already denied any involvement in the terrorist attack through the Deputy Minister of Emergency Situations. The official version is based on the explosion of fireworks.

However, not everyone believed this version. Firstly, August is clearly not the season for the mass sale of fireworks. Secondly, fireworks, of course, can cause a massive explosion, with external manifestations such as lights of different colours, tails of sparks, etc. But the video footage of the Surmalu explosion shows an explosion without any such effects.

Interestingly, passengers of the Yerevan metro were evacuated on the day of explosion because of a bomb threat. In the past few months, there have also been recorded cases of multiple telephone calls warning of terror attacks. Bank offices in Armenia are bombed with grenades. News are still coming... Lest we forget about the Sasna Tsrer party created by terrorists who once seized a police precinct in Yerevan, manifesting the traditions of Armenian political terrorism that can be traced back to the 19th century.

Although the Armenian authorities deny the fact of a terror attack at the market, this does not diminish the risk of terror in the country.