Nikol Pashinyan devoted the last year to actively promoting ‘the Real Armenia’ which he claims can materialise as long as the territorial aspirations of its neighbours, Turkey and Azerbaijan, are fulfilled. Flanked by his Young Janissaries, he visited different villages, assuring the local Armenian population that those lands were not so vital for the interests of the country, and that handing over the graves of their ancestors to Azerbaijanis for the sake of future peace was the ultimate prudence, reasonableness, and pragmatism. Throughout his pro-Turkish tour, he had repeatedly received numerous insults, the most common being “capitulator” and “Turk”. He is predictably annoyed with the former, since capitulators are those who, for various reasons, have made the choice to surrender to the enemy. Pashinyan, after all, spent his life dreaming of just one thing – to rise to power in order to divide the Armenian people he detests, give away Artsakh and bring Armenia back into the Turkish world, which was worshiped by his ideological mentors – Ashot Bleyan and Levon Ter-Petrosyan – throughout their lives. Hence, it needs to be clearly understood that all of Pashinyan’s actions are sheer state treason. That is the only explanation, for all others would allow him a margin for exculpatory manoeuvres, where he has no match.
His attitude towards the second insult (Turk) though, is quite different. By his own admission, he doesn’t even take it as an insult. Being a Turk and being called a Turk is not a trouble to Pashinian, on the contrary, it is a great honour, as evidenced by his adoration of Ilham Aliyev and Recep Erdogan. Indeed, only a genuine Turk could, after surrendering Artsakh, liberated at the cost of the lives of the best sons of the Armenian world, announce early elections to retain his grip on power instead of putting a bullet into his head. Only a Turk could roam the world capitals with a smile and uninhibited desire to shake hands with Aliyev and Erdogan, who ordered the firebombing of Armenian women’s, children’s and old people’s homes, blowing up ancient Armenian churches, desecrating graves and memorials of Armenian soldiers. And definitely only a Turk could stand so indifferently watching the 120,000 Armenian population being deported from Artsakh. It is no trouble for him to hear ‘Turk’ in his address, as he blatantly, consistently, and hastily continues the cause of his ‘predecessor’ Young Turks and Kemal Ataturk in annihilating not only Armenia, but also the Armenian identity.
Pashinyan not just wants, he demands Armenians to understand and accept the plain fact that he is the benchmark Turk, and he will implement the domestic and foreign policies of the Armenia prescribed to him accordingly. It’s no longer about the accusations against him and his Young Janissaries, the issue lies elsewhere and with others. We are not talking about those who refer to themselves as ‘opposition’ and legitimise the Turkish colonial government by their mere presence within the walls of the National Assembly (parliament). And not even about those who after the 2020 Azerbaijani aggression keep fiercely persuading their compatriots that there are some external forces (Russians, Iranians, the French, Americans, Indians) concerned with the salvation of the great and ancient Armenian nation. They are just executing their masters’ instructions – assuring us that Armenia is nothing and nobody in this world and cannot survive without a strong saviour (and the dressing of this statement depends on the origin of funds). Such parasites spreading the ideology of geopolitical pimping are just as treasonous as the Turkish protagonist against whom they ‘wage a relentless and desperate struggle’.
By ‘others’ we refer exclusively to Armenians who once took an oath to serve and protect Armenia’s interests, but who still continue to work inside the power structure of someone who perceives the worst of all possible insults directed at Armenians (and not only Armenians) (‘Turk’) like dew from the sky. The depth of the hole where the Armenian people have found themselves in is reflected in how, after the shameful surrender of Artsakh, we are continuing to live as if nothing happened. The officers are wearing pressed uniforms with the flag and the coat of arms, shaking this Turk prime minister’s hand with a smile, diplomats in expensive suits are hobnobbing in social gatherings in London and Paris, philanthropists in the communities abroad are launching humanitarian ‘projects of the future’. A classic feast in time of plague, erasing the remnants of the already poor historical memory. As if the Genocide of 1915, for recognition of which we advocate so strongly across the entire world, had never happened; as if there was no Turkish invasion of Eastern Armenia and the Battle of Sardarapat in 1918; no ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population in Getashen, Sumgait and Baku in 1988-1991; neither liberation of Artsakh in 1992-1994, nor its humiliating loss in 2020-2023, which has turned each and every one of us into a miserable rabble that deserves only one thing – contempt.
By others, we also imply those individuals who had/have the opportunity to reverse the current drift into an abyss from which there is no longer an escape. During the velvet madness of spring 2018, when the country was just one step short of a major bloodbath, the newly appointed President Armen Sarkissian acted as a mediator and thus saved the country from tragic consequences. Many have forgotten about it by now, but it is only due to him that Armenians did not clash in a civil war on the eve of the landmark date of 24 April. Regrettably, Armen Sarkissian did not deploy his considerable political capital in any way to build his own political infrastructure. Apparently, the President was hoping that Pashinyan had some conscience and would govern differently. In fact, Pashinyan, who promised to change Serzh Sargsyan’s Constitution to establish a system of checks and balances, not only failed to thank Armen Sarkissian, but also harassed and hounded him with his Young Janissaries. He was plainly jealous of Armen Sarkissian’s global reach and how effortlessly and skilfully he could negotiate with the powerful global players and promote Armenia’s interests even with his limited mandate.
Since the end of 2019, the velvet euphoria has almost come to naught, the promised paradise has not descended upon anyone, the oligarchs and corrupt officials have carried on with their pursuits, only the tribute collector has been replaced (this is how any feudal system works). In the absence of any change, many Armenian citizens and millions of Armenians in the Diaspora communities were hoping for the renewed initiative of the President, who kept talking about the need for urgent systemic reforms. He enjoyed a high approval rating in the country, an indication of not only affinity but also high credibility. But it is not just the people’s love, which can be capricious, Armen Sarkissian is a seasoned statesman with a global perspective, who championed the creation of the independent Republic. After the defeat in the 44-day war, he issued an ideological programme ‘Towards the Fourth Republic’, in which he had proposed fundamental systemic reforms involving prominent professionals from the Diaspora, who were in no way associated with any political force either in Armenia or in the Diaspora communities.
The concept of the ‘Fourth Republic’ was widely welcomed in the Republic and communities, but the predictable attacks from Pashinyan, who was keen to renew his mandate through elections, forced Armen Sarkissian to back down. And therein lies the key grievance of the Armenian world, which did not understand and accept such indecisiveness at such a critical moment for the country and the people. Now he is doomed to be railroaded as a convenient scapegoat for Nikol Pashinyan and the ‘opposition’. The foundation for this has been set long ago, as Armen Sarkissian has been portrayed as a Freemason and a top secret British agent, who was dispatched to Armenia to eradicate it by the hands of the naive and clueless Pashinyan. The latter is well aware of Armen Sarkissian’s potential, that’s why he occasionally launches attacks against the former President. The concerns of Pashinyan and other domestic players are by no means groundless, as Armen Sarkissian indeed has a chance to emerge as a national leader in a country in total crisis and profound apathy. The only question is whether he wants it and whether he has the determination to do what it takes.
Another personality upon whom great hopes were pinned was Ruben Vardanyan. He had long positioned himself as a national philanthropist who co-operates with the state but distances himself from grand politics in any of its manifestations. He had repeatedly stated that he was not a politician and did not aspire to become one. A convenient position, which was professed by the majority of philanthropists of Armenian origin throughout the 30-year history of the Third Republic. They carried out projects of a non-strategic nature, earning themselves glowing PR and love of the masses, being hosted by the top politicians of the country and presented with national awards. But the most convenient thing of all is in not bearing any political risks, not assuming responsibility for the fate of the country, passively watching its degradation from a bird’s eye viewpoint, and telling tales about a world of pink ponies in interviews for the Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal.
Self-deception and living in an invented reality will not change the fact that their entire philanthropy has strengthened not the state, but the feudal political regimes of Levon Ter-Petrossian, Robert Kocharyan, Serzh Sargsyan and now, Pashinyan. Neither the sparkling Northern Avenue in Yerevan, nor the glitter of the expensive glass of Zvartnots airport, nor the world’s longest reversible aerial ropeway in Tatev, nor the pricey exhibits in the Cascade Museum, nor the international school in Dilijan, nor the touching Hollywood film “The Promise” can obscure the main outcome – the humiliating loss of Artsakh and the crawling colonisation of Armenia. History places the final judgement on the people as a collective body, barring any exceptions. On the contrary – it may be somewhat lenient towards ordinary people, but absolutely ruthless towards those who had qualitative and quantitative means of exerting influence on the developments. Calouste Gulbenkian’s and Stepan Lianozov’s stories are vivid illustrations to this.
Unlike many of his fellow philanthropists, Ruben Vardanyan at a certain point moved across to the other side of the national life. It is hard to tell what the real reason was for his decision to engage in the political life of Armenia and Artsakh, so we will imply he had good intentions. Unfortunately, the road to hell is paved with them, especially if one does not realise what and who he is dealing with. Apparently, Ruben has viewed grand politics as yet another business project failing to appreciate that politics and business are of completely different nature and genesis. A state is not a Limited Liability Company that can be shut down to start a new one, and the people are not employees who can be simply laid off if anything goes wrong. In politics, the price for amateurishness and poor governance may be measured in human lives and loss of statehood. And we, as a people who have suffered repeated mass exterminations and expulsions from our lands, are obliged to both know and understand this better than anyone else.
But the very same example with Ruben Vardanyan indicates that not only we did not learn our lessons, but we did not even realise that it was essential to do so. At first he decided to get involved in Armenia’s domestic politics (as another business project). The candidates he backed lost elections not only for Yerevan’s Council of Elders, but also for Dilijan and Goris, two cities where he had invested heavily. The result was a complete failure. After such a failure, a skilled politician was bound to take a pause and undertake a thorough review of his mistakes. Instead, he abruptly and with no serious preparation jumped into the depths of extremely complex and treacherous foreign policy processes that emerged from global tectonic geopolitical shifts. It is twice as imprudent to take such steps in the company of those who had been tirelessly preparing the conditions for Artsakh’s inevitable collapse. This is most relevant for Araik Harutyunyan, the then President of Artsakh, who would walk around Nikol Pashinyan’s campaign headquarters with a broad smile.
Ruben Vardanyan came to believe that he was capable of tackling problems of this scale with a swoop, inspiring people with quotes from Bertrand Russell. Regrettably, he never really grasped the perspectives of Vladimir Putin, Joseph Biden, Recep Erdogan, Ilham Aliyev, Nikol Pashinyan, Robert Kocharyan, Serzh Sargsyan, and others. The eventual outcome is the total catastrophe for Artsakh, the expulsion of the entire Armenian population from there, and a Baku jail robe for Vardanyan and other members of what used to be called an ‘Artsakh elite’. It is highly unlikely that Ilham Aliyev ever imagined that he could so easily put on knees not only Armenia, but also the entire Armenian world, which not so long ago (in the 90s) posed a genuine threat to the very existence of Azerbaijan. Aliyev won because, in contrast to his Armenian vis-a-vis, he was occupied not only with accumulation of capital, but also with political affairs. In a clash between politicians and businesspeople who fancy themselves as politicians, the former inevitably prevail. It’s like observing a fight between eagles and canaries. Both of them fly, but the former fly high and the latter fly very low.
At the same time, it should be stressed that Ruben Vardanyan cannot be compared with the members of the feudal system, who are directly responsible for the failure of national and state building. Ruben’s issue is his extremely careless attitude to the very phenomenon of politics and his failure to understand the importance of adjusting one’s thinking and activity in the world of harsh and ruthless logic of political realism (realpolitik). Irrespective of all circumstances, failures and mistakes, Armenia and the Armenian world are obliged to press for the release of all those who are held in captivity in Baku today. They are all Armenians and only the Armenian state is entitled to pass judgement on them. Every day they are held hostage by Aliyev is an irreparable blow to Armenia, to Spyurk, and to every Armenian, independent of their political views. In this matter, Pashinyan solidarised with Ilham Aliyev, dismissing the detention of Armenian citizens in an Azerbaijani prison as not being his problem. Most likely, he was not only unopposed to the detention of Ruben Vardanyan, but also supported it and even prompted Aliyev on how to do it. This should not come as a surprise, as Vardanyan was one of the few who openly criticised Pashinyan’s policies. His Young Janissaries and Pashinyan himself are still extremely hostile about Ruben, openly supporting his arrest by Azerbaijan.
We can keep pushing our luck and defy history, but the outcome of further imitative activities is already evident to everyone but ourselves. The only chance to break out of survival mode and get on the path of genuine nation- and state-building is to start forming a national aristocracy on the basis of a fundamental ideological foundation. Noubar Afeyan is one of the few figures in the Armenian world, along with Armen Sarkissian, who can become the standard-bearer of this process. Today, he is renowned in many corners of the Armenian world, which includes Armenia (though to a lesser extent than Spyurk). For a long time, together with Ruben Vardanyan, he has been the initiator of numerous educational and humanitarian projects. His strengths are his global connections, breadth of vision, and desire to change the country for the better; his weak spot is launching projects that do not contribute to that end in any meaningful way.
Take, for example, The Future Armenian Project, which calls for world peace and prevention of future crimes against humanity. Initiatives of this kind are not only entirely impractical, as they run against the realities of world politics and international relations, but are also extremely harmful, serving as an open display of the helplessness of Armenians as a nearly extinct species in this ferocious geopolitical jungle. Genocide is not a century-old story, it is a reality in which we are right here and now, and peace-loving appeals, particularly to its direct executors, cannot stop it. The “civilised” world was well aware of Turkey’s crime against Armenians in World War I, a fact that did not prevent the Holocaust, the recognition and condemnation of which at the Nuremberg Tribunal, in turn, did not stop Pol Pot in Cambodia (1975-1979 genocide), Georges Rutaganda in Rwanda (1994 genocide), or Ali Kusheib in Darfur (2003 genocide). To hope to appeal to those who pay lip service to defending international law and opposing the crimes of genocide, but de facto cover up for the perpetrator, who is of interest and beneficial to them, is mere naivety, which always leads to tragic consequences.
Today Noubar Afeyan has a solid advantage over the others – he has seen with his own eyes (witnessing his partner Ruben Vardanyan) how not to do things and what are the consequences of naivety, amateurishness, absurd romanticism, indecisiveness, and staying in a mythical reality ruled by peace, friendship, and mutual understanding.
No doubt, the Armenian world has always been rich with people possessing leadership qualities and ready to do everything for the sake of a strong and independent fatherland. However, wishes and concerns are not political categories, and such Armenians need to realise this and step out of their usual comfort zone. It’s time to think in a different way, live in a different way, and act in a different way.
This is our last chance, it’s time to get real.
