At the recent conference titled "Crossroads of Peace: Uniting Security and Democracy," organized by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation and the Civil Contract party on October 12, 2024, the head of the government of Armenia reiterated the thesis he has previously addressed on numerous occasions. Let’s recall two examples of these concepts: (a) "Armenia is ready to provide routes for both gas and oil pipelines, and power lines," and (b) "Armenia has no intention of liberating its territories from Azerbaijan’s occupation by military means." According to him, this issue will be automatically resolved during the delineation and demarcation process—an assumption that is, of course, flawed.
While the person occupying the seat of the prime minister of the Republic of Armenia announced at the Yerevan conference that Armenia is ready to begin the practical work of ensuring the communication channels between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey immediately, his team members have not ruled out the possibility of another Azerbaijani invasion of Armenia after the 29th annual Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP 29), which will be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, from November 11 to 22, 2024. Furthermore, foreign minister Ararat Mirzoyan has conveyed Armenia’s concerns from international platforms, openly declaring that Azerbaijan is preparing for new military operations due to significant enhancement of its defensive and offensive capabilities.
What do these conflicting positions from Armenian officials mean against the backdrop of the foreign policy mosaic? One statement emphasizes peace and the willingness to unblock communication channels, while the other warns of possible Azerbaijani military aggression against Armenia. Many experts do not see these contradictions as evidence of internal disagreements within the government. On the contrary, they suggest these are complementary statements, possibly coordinated in advance.
The incumbent authorities likely understand that, after COP-29, Azerbaijan—possibly with the agreement of Turkey and the West—might attack Armenia to advance the idea of unifying the Turkic world. This unification is aimed against Iran and Russia and, to some extent, even China, with the goal of controlling Central Asia. That’s why our so-called "wise men" make statements indicating that Armenia is willing to agree to everything and take any necessary steps. This is meant to signal that the enemy has no legitimacy to attack—although, in the case of a consensus among the major powers, an attack may happen regardless of legitimacy.
Syunik is now at the center of geopolitical developments in the region, with Pashinyan's concept of the Peace Crossroads in play. The main discussions in this area—discussions in which Armenia does not participate—revolve around controlling communication routes, particularly the so-called "Zangezur Corridor." This "corridor" is being claimed by the West, Turkey, and even Azerbaijan, with the aim of ensuring that Russia and Iran do not control the road. Armenia’s opinion isn’t even being solicited, and it seems that no one is interested in and there is no "buyer" of Pashinyan’s Peace Crossroads initiative.
As for the contradictory statements from high-ranking officials of the ruling Civil Contract party, they are nothing more than cries of impotence, a logical consequence of a misguided policy pursued over the past six years.