Op-ed by Vartan Oskanian, Armenia’s former foreign minister (1998-2008)
Today, as nearly all of us are focused on the goal of removing Nikol Pashinyan, regardless of the path by which that goal may be achieved—it is essential, both for ourselves and for the broader public, to clarify several key questions. These questions, in my view, remain unarticulated and are impeding progress toward that objective.
Given the tragic, disastrous, and nightmarish situation Armenia currently faces, a wide range of interpretations about Pashinyan—ranging from accusations of treason and betrayal to claims of incompetence or naïveté—are not only understandable but deserve to be heard. What has transpired, and continues to transpire, in Armenia defies logic, precedent, and historical comparison. Within that broad spectrum of views, I would like to offer my own straightforward interpretation.
First, Nikol Pashinyan came to power through the will of the people. The narratives that have been circulated for years—that he was backed by some third “powerful” forces, that what happened was a conspiracy—are, in my firm belief, detached from reality. My conviction stems from years of work and interaction with these so-called “third forces” at various levels. The world doesn’t work like that. That different forces have different interests in our region is undeniable. But that does not mean those forces united, discovered Pashinyan, made him the leader of a revolution, and are keeping him in power. This unrealistic narrative only serves to undeservedly elevate Pashinyan. He was brought to power by the people—and the people can correct their mistake.
It is also, therefore, beyond doubt for me that Pashinyan, who came to power on a wave of public trust, did not intend to bring the country to this point—much less had a plan to do so. On the contrary, I believe he would have liked to achieve successes that would outshine the accomplishments of his predecessors. The myth that he was brought in by some forces to hand over Nagorno Karabakh, weaken Armenia, and dismember it, also has no connection to reality, and this belief too is grounded in my diplomatic experience. In 2018, Pashinyan was simply unprepared for the challenges of leading a state in such a complex region. He was inexperienced, uninformed, inept, unfamiliar with international relations, and at the same time overly self-confident. He failed for these reasons. Seeking some conspiracy behind it is pointless and fruitless.
Now that he has created this situation—albeit unintentionally, but as a result of his ignorance and incompetence—I believe he himself is well aware that he has brought a great disaster upon the Armenian people, one for which he will not be forgiven. It was unacceptable, that after the war, instead of leaving the scene, he chose to enter a phase of self-justification and has since tried to “explain” events with supposedly “innovative” ideas. In essence, this is a trap—a vicious cycle that Pashinyan has thrown himself into. The fact that nearly everything he says aligns with Azerbaijan’s interests is, in my view, not the result of a conspiracy, but of this same vicious cycle: under his leadership, Armenia’s national interests have become so undefended that, unable to protect them, Pashinyan is forced to invent arguments suggesting that what’s transpiring is the only viable option.
Given the complex situation, which Pashinyan does not know how to fix, he—trapped in self-justification—will only deepen this anti-national rhetoric, making Armenia’s position even more vulnerable, with further irreversible losses. His situation is hardly enviable. But the opposition must also understand that Pashinyan is aware that losing power is, for him, a matter of “life and death.” This means that, alongside external serious challenges and Azerbaijani pressure, Armenia is also threatened by the prospect of continued power usurpation and severe internal civil clashes. The only way to avoid this is to turn Pashinyan’s departure from power into a more acceptable choice than the “life or death” scenario.
Pashinyan must step down for the simple reason that he lacks both the capacity to lead the country and the backing of any external ally. He does not understand the responsibilities of his role, has failed to learn or evolve over the past seven years, and exhibits signs of behavioral instability. He is incapable of listening, does not grasp the weight and significance of language in politics and diplomacy, and, as a result, poses a serious threat to Armenia’s security, development, prosperity, and national cohesion.
Today, Pashinyan still has the opportunity to step down peacefully—by acknowledging that he has simply proven himself unprepared and incapable, while also recognizing the inevitability of being held accountable before the law. The opposition, for its part, must also accept this option, as any alternative would turn into a ‘life or death’ dilemma—heightening the temptation for Pashinyan to usurp power and increasing the likelihood of internal conflict.
