Armenian Peace Deal: Triumph or Treason?

A preliminary peace agreement with Azerbaijan, brokered in the United States, has sharply divided Armenia, with political factions and citizens fiercely debating its implications. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government hails the move as a historic diplomatic victory, while the opposition brands it a catastrophic betrayal of national interests. Meanwhile, ordinary Armenians express deep anxiety about the nation’s future, fearing that a new regional security order could jeopardize their rights and freedoms.

The opposition, led by blocs associated with former presidents Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan, has vehemently condemned the agreement. They argue that it legitimizes what they call “ethnic cleansing and genocidal policy” by Azerbaijan against the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh (known as Artsakh in Armenia). Critics claim the deal’s provisions will be used to prosecute Armenians involved in the Karabakh conflict and that it represents a dangerous alliance with Turkey, leaving Yerevan with no tangible benefits from its concessions.

In stark contrast, the ruling Civil Contract party portrays the agreement as a gateway to a new era of stability and prosperity. Parliament Speaker Alen Simonyan declared that the deal offers Armenia’s youth a future of peace and significant economic opportunities. He dismissed opponents as being blinded by “envy and money.” In a striking show of support, a newspaper owned by Pashinyan’s family lauded the prime minister as a modern-day reincarnation of national hero Garegin Nzhdeh, crediting him with preventing a new war.

Amid the political furor, some figures are urging caution. Armenia’s first president, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, has chosen to reserve judgment until the agreement is fully implemented, stating that its true consequences can only be assessed over time. However, he noted his concern over the “almost complete silence” from Russia, Armenia’s traditional ally, and the “various” assessments coming from Iranian officials.

For many citizens, the debate transcends the treaty’s specific clauses. A Yerevan-based bank employee named Gevorg expressed a common sentiment of unease, stating that the primary concern among his peers is the country’s overall trajectory. He voiced fears that a new regional security system could be dominated by Turkey and Azerbaijan, and that Pashinyan might leverage the peace deal to consolidate power and move Armenia towards a more autocratic model of governance, similar to its neighbors.

Political analyst Arshaluys Mghdesyan observes a significant shift in public opinion, with a growing camp of citizens favoring stronger ties with the West and a shrinking pro-Russian faction. He suggests that most Armenians understand the government is not seeking to gain from the deal, but rather to minimize the damage from its defeat in the recent war over Karabakh. Mghdesyan also warns of a potential tendency to replace the “myth” of Russian protection with a similar, perhaps equally unfounded, faith in the United States.