The statement “peace has come,” to which Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan refers, is purely an election slogan with no connection to reality. This opinion was expressed by political commentator Hakob Badalyan, commenting on Armenia’s participation in the SCO summit.
“It is too early to say what this participation gave Armenia, but what it gave Nikol Pashinyan is probably better known to him personally. Pashinyan’s motives during this period are mainly driven by the task of retaining power, and his work in the SCO direction as a whole was aimed precisely at serving this task,” he noted.
According to him, naturally, in conditions of a collapsing world order, when global power centers are competing for their place in the new system, countries strive to work with these centers. The question, however, is with what content and agenda Armenia engages in this, and whether it raises issues beyond peace statements that carry only a decorative function. In the context of the SCO, priority should be given to attracting investments, and for that, concrete programs and projects are necessary.
“From this perspective, it seems we have nothing to present. Therefore, the question of how effective our actions really are becomes relevant. I repeat, a mere declarative package on peace is not enough to speak about the effectiveness of one step or another. All the more so, since the speeches of Pashinyan and Aliyev on the sidelines of the SCO summit made it clear that peace statements are purely an election slogan with little to do with reality,” he said.
Badalyan emphasized that at this point it is not even so important what exactly the President of Azerbaijan declares or what wording he uses, since it is obvious that Baku’s goals, views, and strategic prospects are entirely different, and peace is not part of Azerbaijan’s plans — or only to the extent that Armenia accepts Baku’s conditions and demands.
Azerbaijan will demand more than what is stipulated in the draft peace agreement, the expert stated. He stressed that Azerbaijan operates according to the following scheme: demands are put forward, international legitimacy for them is secured, Yerevan’s loyalty is then ensured, after which the wording is adapted to a more acceptable format, as was the case with the “Trump Route,” and once the demand is met, new demands are advanced and the cycle repeats. There is no end to this process in sight — otherwise, a peace treaty would have already been signed, not merely initialed.