In recent weeks, public discourse in Armenia has intensified around the statements made by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan advocating for a peaceful resolution with Azerbaijan. His calls for reconciliation and the restoration of economic ties have sparked sharp reactions in both media and political circles. Parliamentary Speaker Alen Simonyan also faced criticism for suggesting that, following the signing of a peace agreement, Armenian and Azerbaijani citizens could promptly resume trade, communication, and interaction.
Previously, international actors—including the European Union—consistently emphasized the importance of preparing societies for peace. However, following the end of the 2020 armed conflict, external rhetoric shifted toward neutrality, and proactive support for the peace process from international partners became less visible. This shift can be partly attributed to a transformed balance of power and the emergence of new political realities in the South Caucasus.
At this stage, primary attention should be focused on the interest of the peoples of Azerbaijan and Armenia in achieving sustainable peace. Ending a long-standing conflict requires not only political declarations but also consistent practical steps. In this regard, Azerbaijan has demonstrated a willingness to engage in direct bilateral dialogue, whereas the Armenian government has struggled to maintain consistency in its negotiating strategy—often under pressure from domestic radical groups and external political influences.
A contradiction is increasingly evident between Armenia’s stated commitment to peace and its concurrent procurement of offensive weaponry, which may be perceived by the public as preparation for potential escalation. These developments raise concerns regarding the overall stability of the region. At the same time, revanchist rhetoric propagated by certain opposition factions hinders internal consensus and undermines de-escalation efforts.
Criticism of the Prime Minister often centers on the alleged lack of mechanisms to ensure national security. However, such arguments tend to overlook the fact that, following the 2020 conflict, it was Baku that proposed moving toward integrative mechanisms and a pragmatic normalization of bilateral relations.
Further controversy was triggered by the trilateral summit of Azerbaijan, Türkiye, and Pakistan, held on May 28 in the city of Lachin. Some Armenian media outlets interpreted the event as having military implications, portraying it as a step toward forming an anti-Armenian bloc. However, official statements by the leaders of the participating countries underscored the peaceful nature of the cooperation, aimed at strengthening stability across the Eurasian region.
In light of these developments, it appears appropriate for Armenia to recalibrate its domestic political discourse in accordance with the evolving regional context. A shift away from escalatory rhetoric and a reconsideration of national priorities in favor of sustainable development and good-neighborly relations could create favorable conditions for long-term stabilization in the South Caucasus.
Maintaining internal peace and an independent foreign policy course requires a measured and responsible approach—one that is free from the influence of external lobbying groups. For Armenia, this also entails concluding the current period of uncertainty and adapting to a new regional architecture grounded in a balance of interests and recognition of existing realities.
