Officials confess Armenia’s role as aggressor – What will Yerevan decide?

By Fatima Latifova

The conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia has disrupted stability and security in the South Caucasus region for many years. In an effort to resolve these issues, Azerbaijan has shown considerable tolerance towards Armenia, offering proposals that would benefit both the Azerbaijani and Armenian people. However, Armenian officials merely make verbal calls for peace, ignoring these proposals and failing to take concrete steps.

Speaker of the Armenian Parliament, Alen Simonyan, following Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's path, has made seemingly peaceful statements. During an interview, Simonyan acknowledged that Azerbaijan’s military operation in Garabagh was conducted in accordance with the four UN resolutions that have been ignored by Yerevan for 30 years.

He also provided insight into Armenia's defeat in the Second Garabagh War:

"During the Second Garabakh War, we [Armenia] were deeply disappointed because the world did not respond the way we expected. One reason for this was the lack of legitimacy on our side."

Simonyan admitted that Armenian officials have begun to accept the truth:

"It's encouraging to see Armenian officials acknowledging what Azerbaijan has been saying all along. Everything Azerbaijan did to restore its territorial integrity and sovereignty fully aligned with international law," he added.

Interestingly, in April this year, Pashinyan’s agreement to return four villages to Azerbaijan caused uproar in the Armenian parliament, with many officials opposing the decision. Protests against this move further complicated the situation. Although Simonyan supported Pashinyan at the time, his latest statements reflect a direct admission of Armenia’s role as the aggressor.

Simonyan’s remarks reveal the true stance of Armenian society. Agreeing with Azerbaijan’s military actions based on UN resolutions was an unexpected move from Armenia and answers many lingering questions. It seems Armenian politicians continue their strategy of “peace in the foreground, provocation in the background.” This duplicity was evident during the meeting of foreign ministers in Istanbul, where Armenia’s hollow promises and double-dealing rhetoric persisted.

Despite rejecting Azerbaijan's peace proposals multiple times, Armenia stubbornly refuses to sign a peace agreement. Even after Baku adjusted its demands, excluding the opening of the Zangazur Corridor from the peace deal, Yerevan remains unwilling to commit to peace. Pashinyan’s administration hides behind false promises, pretending to be ready for peace, but in reality, it follows a policy of hypocrisy.

The truth is that Armenia’s constitution still contains explicit territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Pashinyan insists he does not adhere to these constitutional provisions, but it remains unclear whether he intends to guarantee future Armenian leaders will do the same. Does Pashinyan assume he will remain in power indefinitely, or will he leave unresolved issues for his successors?

Naturally, Azerbaijan is unwilling to sign a peace treaty with a state whose constitution includes territorial claims against the other state. There is a real possibility that a future Armenian leader could invoke this constitution to mobilise the population and military for another conflict. Armenia’s pattern of broken promises and dual strategies is a recurring problem in the region. Violations of the ceasefire near Azerbaijan’s borders—before President Ilham Aliyev’s inauguration ceremony, after the foreign ministers' meeting in Almaty, and following even Pashinyan's peace declarations—are telling examples of this behaviour.

Armenia is now trying to present itself as innocent and peaceful, hoping to portray Azerbaijan as the obstacle to peace. However, Azerbaijan refuses to fall for this cunning plan. If Armenia truly desires the peace it claims to seek, it must take meaningful steps. Empty promises to the media will not bring peace or help Armenia avoid meeting Azerbaijan’s legitimate demands.

Following Simonyan’s admissions, Yerevan must make crucial decisions regarding its constitution, the fate of nearly 4,000 missing Azerbaijanis, and the maps of landmines haphazardly planted in Garabagh. Without concrete actions, Armenia will struggle to achieve everlasting peace or build trust with Azerbaijan.