Op-ed by Vartan Oskanian, Armenia’s former foreign minister (1998-2008)
Every nation carries the weight of its history. It shapes identity, informs diplomacy, and provides a foundation for future generations. When a leader deliberately erases parts of this history to justify his own failures, he betrays not only his country’s past but also its future. This is precisely what Nikol Pashinyan is doing—rewriting Armenia’s story to excuse his political failures, offering the nation nothing but resignation and defeatism.
Pashinyan announced that Real Armenia will be the central premise of his campaign for the 2026 elections. He expects the Armenian people to rally behind a vision that demands they forget their past, abandon their displaced compatriots, and accept Armenia as a diminished and demoralized state. He insists that Armenia must accept its current borders—likely with further losses—and forget everything else. He presents this as pragmatism, but in reality, it is nothing more than a convenient excuse for his failures in diplomacy and governance. His doctrine of Real Armenia is about surrender. By erasing Karabakh from the national consciousness, he attempts to legitimize his inability to protect its people and their right to self-determination.
Yet history shows that such self-inflicted amnesia does not bring peace—only more concessions. A leader who repeatedly abandons his own people’s fundamental rights does not build security; he invites further demands. The Azeri regime will not stop at Karabakh. Pashinyan’s pattern of retreat emboldens those who seek to further weaken Armenia. The more he erases history, the more he signals to Armenia’s adversaries that there is always more to take.
The entire nation—especially the opposition—must recognize that this is Pashinyan’s Achilles’ heel. His vision is not one of national renewal or pragmatic statecraft; it is one of incompetence, failure, and the formalization of Armenia’s decline. The idea that Armenia should accept its current state as its only possible future is not just uninspiring—it is outright dangerous. It signals to the world that Armenia will no longer fight for its interests, advocate for its historical rights, or even honor its own people’s suffering.
No serious nation simply forgets its lost territories. Greece has never erased the memory of Constantinople. Poland continues to commemorate Lviv. Serbia, despite losing Kosovo, still considers it a core part of its historical narrative. The Ukraine-Russia war will likely be resolved through harsh territorial compromises, but even in such a scenario, Ukraine will never erase its lost lands from its historical consciousness. Why should Armenia be any different?
We must be clear: there is a distinction between active territorial claims and historical truth, between peaceful negotiations and the erasure of identity. Yet Pashinyan’s defeatist rhetoric serves only his own political survival. He is not redefining history out of necessity but out of convenience—because acknowledging the truth would mean admitting his own responsibility for the disaster that unfolded under his watch.
The Armenian people must not let Real Armenia become an excuse for Pashinyan’s failures. This slogan must be turned against him—exposed for what it truly is: a hollow justification for incompetence, defeatism, and a betrayal of Armenia’s dignity.
4 Comments
Submitted on March 3, 2025
Vartan Oskanian presents an idealized past over the pressing realities of the present and future. The fundamental premise of Prime Minister Pashinyan’s “Real Armenia” is not to erase history but to build a sustainable, independent, and secure Armenia within its internationally recognized borders. The alternative – continuing to fixate on territorial grievances without the economic, military, or geopolitical capacity to address them – risks perpetual instability and endangers Armenia’s future. A pragmatic foreign policy is not an admission of defeat; it is a recognition of the constraints Armenia faces in an increasingly complex regional and global environment.
Oskanian argues that no serious nation forgets its lost territories, citing Greece, Poland, Serbia, and Ukraine as examples. However, these comparisons overlook key differences. Greece’s aspirations regarding Constantinople remain symbolic and have not dictated its foreign policy in a way that compromises its national security. Poland has integrated itself into a stable European framework rather than attempting to reclaim lost territories. Serbia’s claim over Kosovo has been an impediment to its EU integration, and Ukraine’s situation involves an ongoing war with direct military and economic support from the West – circumstances vastly different from Armenia’s geopolitical reality.
Oskanian warns that Azerbaijan will continue to make territorial demands if Armenia signals a willingness to compromise. However, this argument disregards the alternative: if Armenia continues to stake its national identity on historical grievances and an adversarial posture, it will remain vulnerable, isolated, and unable to build the alliances and economic strength necessary to deter future threats.
At the same time, I would like to offer a different viewpoint regarding the urgency of these reforms. One of the key factors driving this debate is Azerbaijan’s assertion that Armenia’s constitution implies territorial claims, particularly through references to the Nagorno-Karabakh region. To put this in a global context, imagine if Germany’s constitution still alluded to historical claims over territories lost to Poland after World War II. Such references would likely be perceived as a continuation of territorial ambitions, complicating diplomatic relations and regional stability. Germany’s formal recognition of the Oder–Neisse line in the Treaty of Warsaw in 1970 helped pave the way for peace and reconciliation in Europe. Similarly, addressing certain historical references in Armenia’s constitution could help mitigate external pressures and reinforce Armenia’s commitment to peaceful coexistence.
History demonstrates that security is best ensured through economic development, diplomatic engagement, and strategic alliances—not through intransigence and symbolic resistance. Under Pashinyan, Armenia has sought to recalibrate its foreign policy to reflect this reality. It has expanded diplomatic outreach beyond its traditional alliances, recognizing that relying solely on past alliances has not guaranteed Armenia’s security. Accepting the current borders of Armenia does not mean forgetting Karabakh or the suffering of its people. It means understanding that Armenia cannot indefinitely mortgage its future to unresolved territorial disputes. The well-being of the Armenian state and its people must take precedence over symbolic politics that offer no tangible path forward.
Oskanian’s argument implies that Prime Minister Pashinyan’s policies are about political survival rather than national interest. However, history suggests that leaders who make difficult but necessary compromises – rather than those who cling to untenable positions – are the ones who secure their nations’ futures.
Armenia’s focus must be on strengthening its governance, economy, and military within its recognized borders rather than pursuing ambitions that neither its allies nor the global community will support. Prime Minister Pashinyan’s vision of “Real Armenia” is not an act of erasure but an acknowledgment that Armenia must prioritize state-building over unattainable territorial claims. Armenia’s survival and prosperity depend on pragmatic statecraft, not on nostalgia-driven foreign policy.
A strong Armenia is one that invests in its economy, forges productive diplomatic relationships, and ensures its citizens have a future based on stability, not perpetual conflict. To do otherwise is to risk repeating the failures of the past rather than learning from them.
Best Regards,
Berge Jololian
The You Tube link which is missing from my prior comment is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZV-Gyt-V1g&t=185s
Thankyou for including this missing link at the end of my submitted comment if you choose to publish it.
It is entirely unclear how the former foreign minister would have ‘avoided’ the Sep 2020 war or prevailed through diplomacy against the full force of the Azerbaijani Army, Turkish Army and full advanced military technological support of Israel (all of this support to Azerbaijan persists to the present day). It is also entirely unclear how one overlook the fact that this ‘war’ was in the making since when his 1998.
Perhaps this civil net interview on You Tube on ‘The 44 day war’ with Dr Vicken Cheterian, Ashot Voskanyan and Karen Harutyunyan (Civil Net Editor) would provide a more objective perspective on the current reality. I tmay be better than assigning blame. The author of this comment has no political affiliation.
Armenia should not only lay claim to Artsakh, but also Nakhichevan and Western Armenia. This task can be achieved through international acknowledgment of injustices committed by Russian Bolsheviks and Kemalist regime. Instead of celebrating the 1923 Treaty with Turkey, Russians should take the first steps to correct the injustices committed by their former communist regime against the Armenian nation. Real Armenia is nothing more than a capitulation to the Turks, on both sides of the borders.