Azernews.Az

AzerNEWS Staff

Read more

After a thousand trials and tribulations endured by the Armenian diaspora in Paris, the much-anticipated brief scene of the political spectacle has finally taken place. Ara Toranyan, the CAAF's co-chair, proudly hailed the development, with Armenian media outlets reporting on it with considerable excitement and fanfare.

But the issue here is not that France allowed such a political spectacle to take place, even if only for a brief moment. The main focus should instead be on the Armenian opposition and the diaspora groups supporting it, who present themselves as victims on European streets under the slogans of “Artsakh”, while behaving disgracefully on social media platforms.

At times, when you see such pathetic figures pulling every trick in the book on the streets of Europe, you are reminded of historical events and find yourself thinking, if only for a moment, about how painful and tragic the fate of those who fail to learn from history can be.

For example, in 1918–19, following the First World War, an attempt was made to establish the West Ukrainian People's Republic as a result of the break-up of Austria-Hungary. However, following Polish military intervention, the West Ukrainian People's Republic was abolished, and its territories were returned to Poland.

Similarly, in 1972–73, an attempt by private groups to establish the Republic of Minerva was brought to an end within a year following opposition from the Kingdom of Tonga. There are many similar episodes in history. Yet what is particularly regrettable is that a comparable territorial claim, dragged into the modern era under the name of “Artsakh”, continues, for some reason, to receive sympathetic treatment in Europe.

One can only hope that, one day, this ideological struggle, resembling a contagious virus, will not engulf Europe, or even countries beyond Europe that continue to support it, in its own nightmare.

What is particularly regrettable is that these unruly groups, which recently attempted to criticise, in an inappropriate and insulting manner, a sincere letter of thanks sent by Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, do not even seem to understand the political background from which they themselves emerged.

How can groups that so crudely violate diplomatic norms have the audacity to direct such crude insults and foul language at a head of government?

The episode also deserves to be viewed in its broader context. PM Meloni's message was not simply a bilateral communication involving Azerbaijan. A similar message was also addressed to Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. However, it appears that these discredited and abusive groups, which have made targeting Azerbaijan their cause, have turned social media platforms into a weapon of their own, literally saying, a place where historical narratives are recycled, diplomatic gestures are reframed as provocations and personal attacks are substituted for substantive political argument.

That strategy may generate attention, but it does not necessarily generate influence.

For Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, the challenge is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. If his government wants to pursue a new diplomatic chapter for Armenia, it will have to contend not only with its external negotiations but also with domestic and diaspora forces determined to preserve the politics of “Artsakh” as a central organising principle.

The danger for those groups is that their campaign could ultimately damage the very country they claim to represent.

Diplomatic influence is built on credibility, political discipline and an ability to understand changing realities. A movement that relies increasingly on personal attacks, abusive language and attempts to pressure foreign leaders risks turning itself into a liability rather than an asset for Armenia.

That is why the debate surrounding Armenia's constitutional reform deserves particular attention.

If Armenia proceeds with constitutional amendments, the issue of references to “Artsakh” is likely to remain politically sensitive. But attempting to settle that question through punitive restrictions on terminology would risk creating another controversy rather than resolving the underlying political problem.

The more fundamental question is whether Armenia can finally separate its future foreign policy from a territorial narrative rooted in the conflicts of the past.

Europe has changed. The South Caucasus has changed. Armenia's relations with its neighbours are changing. And the diplomatic environment around the region is being reshaped in real time.

The “Artsakh” campaign may still have a powerful presence on social media and among sections of the diaspora. But political narratives cannot remain frozen indefinitely while the geopolitical landscape moves on.

The real test for Armenia's opposition is therefore not how loudly it can revive the past, but whether it can offer a credible vision for Armenia's future.