Today, on the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, Nikol Pashinyan made an address in which he made three difficult and dangerous “confessions”. Political scientist Suren Surenyants wrote about this.
The Declaration contrasted the idea of statehood. He claimed that it was born under the influence of the Karabakh movement, which was formed as a result of the socio-psychological attitude that had been instilled in the Armenians of the USSR for decades. Thus, the basis of independence is presented not as the will of our people for freedom, but as a well-thought-out plan by Moscow.
Pashinyan hinted that the Karabakh movement is a project initiated by the USSR. He stated that through books, films and performances, the USSR imposed “exemplary patriotism” on us, which allegedly led to the movement and the Declaration. Such a formulation not only belittles the national movement, but also presents it as manipulation by a foreign empire. In fact, the most primordial manifestation of the spontaneous will and national unity of the people – the Karabakh movement – in Pashinyan’s eyes turns into an intrigue and a staged game of the USSR. This is a gross distortion of historical memory and an insult to the generation that paved the way at the cost of its own lives… Armenia’s independence, victory in the First Karabakh War.
He admitted that he could have prevented the 44-day war, but did not. According to him, the only way to avoid war is to make concessions, but he refused this path, saying that war threatens independence less than compromises.
In fact, according to Pashinyan’s twisted logic, a war with thousands of victims, loss of territory and undermining of state structures can serve independence more than difficult but possible diplomatic solutions.
Today we have a Prime Minister who is trying to present the glorious movement of the past, the heroic struggle as a conspiracy of the USSR, the Declaration of Independence as an obstacle to statehood, and the 44-day catastrophe as a “guardian of independence.” This is not only a falsification of history, but also a dangerous devaluation of the foundations of statehood.
The reality is that a nation with a state does not sacrifice its existence for the illusion of false “preservation.”
“A nation with a state builds peace, strengthens institutions, and protects its independence not through adventures and false ideologies, but through responsible policies and national unity,” he wrote.