MOSCOW (Realist English). As a potential peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan draws nearer, voices are increasingly being raised warning that Yerevan’s concessions may threaten the very existence of Armenian statehood.
Political scientist and professor Maxim Vaskov analyses Azerbaijani rhetoric and concludes that behind the talk of peace lies a long‑term strategy of demographic pressure, which could ultimately lead to the disappearance of Armenia as an independent state.
A Two‑Sided View of Peace
Living with a neighbour, even one with whom you have a bloody and troubled history, is good. Worse is when there is no peace. But when it comes to Armenia and Azerbaijan, any discussion of peace must immediately address the question: on whose terms will that peace be achieved, and what real benefits and costs will it bring?
First, let us consider the position of Armenia’s leadership. In almost all its statements, it speaks of creating favourable conditions for Armenia in terms of regional security and economic prosperity. From its perspective, abandoning historical discourse that is unpleasant for Turkey and Azerbaijan — and, along the way, abandoning the memory of the victims of the recurring genocides that the “collective Turks” inflicted on the Armenian people (of which the monstrous Armenian Genocide of 1915 is just one, albeit the most famous) — is a necessary price for peace.
Furthermore, renouncing the recognition of Artsakh as Armenian and its final loss, ceding Armenian territories that Baku claims as its own, and reshaping Armenia’s history (whose central theme was the struggle against Turks, whether in Istanbul, Ankara or Baku) into a political concept of “Real Armenia” — all of this is justified, because it is supposed to bring lasting peace and stability, with security guarantees for Armenia, eventually leading to membership in the EU and NATO.
It is noteworthy that Yerevan’s foreign policy stance on a number of key criteria coincides with the ideological and political vector of Azerbaijan’s leadership. But each side sees the future differently. As the saying goes, two people look into a puddle: one sees a puddle, the other sees stars. Supporters of the ruling elite envision, after leaving Russia’s tutelage, a prosperous European paradise — a kind of island of the European Union and liberal civilisation in a sea of Turanian barbarism, promising Armenia a well‑fed and peaceful life under the protection of the EU and NATO.
What Baku Sees: Peace, Azerbaijani‑Style
Azerbaijan sees the situation quite differently. At the first stage, it envisions a completely controlled Armenia, paying compensation to “Azerbaijani victims,” humiliated for “historical crimes against Azerbaijanis,” and manipulated. At the second stage, having secured the resettlement of Azerbaijani refugees and their descendants, and given birth rates, it would simply absorb Armenia, after which the history of “Western Azerbaijan” would continue.
In this context, it is interesting to note the opinion expressed by the Azerbaijani side through the mouths and pens of experts with a clear pro‑government background. Recently, I came across an article by Matin Mammadli, a leading advisor at the Centre for Analysis of International Relations of the Republic of Azerbaijan. In a rather lengthy publication, he notes the positive significance of what, in his view, is the approaching peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan. He mentions the new geopolitical realities that emerged in 2021, which boil down to the defeat of Artsakh, its subsequent absorption, and the ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population, as well as the policy of official Yerevan that is favourable to Azerbaijan — essentially, the gradual acceptance of all of Azerbaijan’s conditions, up to and including Armenian repentance.
The Azerbaijani author’s concern is aroused by the position of the Armenian opposition, which professes the ideology of “Historical Armenia.” In particular, he refers to the speeches of opposition MP Garnik Danielyan, who demands the release of the military and political leaders of Artsakh who are being held in Azerbaijan and put through the meat‑grinder of Azerbaijani “justice.”
Ultimatums and Threats: Quotes from the Article
Then follow the threats typical of Azerbaijani rhetoric towards Armenia, from a position of strength in a war won and repeated public humiliations to which President Ilham Aliyev has subjected both Nikol Pashinyan personally and Armenia as a whole. Let us quote:
“The leadership of Azerbaijan recognises that a lasting peace cannot be achieved through legal measures alone; it also requires continuous political dialogue and the gradual building of mutual trust. At the same time, Azerbaijan’s restraint also has its limits. If the Armenian authorities fail to effectively suppress the unjustified and unconstructive rhetoric of the opposition, the peace process will be seriously undermined… Consequently, some statements may be perceived as populist rhetoric aimed at a certain domestic audience.”
And let us also quote the instructions to Armenians on how, in Azerbaijan’s view, everything should be:
“An important role in the peace negotiations and in maintaining regional stability in the post‑election period will be played by the Armenian leadership’s support for the ‘concept of return’ with the assistance of international legal institutions and external centres of power. This approach is based on the right of return enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on the Status of Refugees and other important international instruments. The return process must restore the configuration of the settlement of Western Azerbaijanis prior to the ethnic cleansing. Deviation from this principle may occur only on the basis of the free will and consent of the persons concerned. All Azerbaijanis expelled from the territory of present‑day Armenia and their descendants have the right to return to their homeland.”
But what about the rights of Armenian refugees and their descendants? We note immediately: there is no talk of the return of Armenians expelled from Azerbaijan, for example to Baku or Sumgait, nor of the crimes of Azerbaijani thugs, nor of compensation for the families of Armenians who suffered from the massacres in Azerbaijan.
Demography as a Weapon: A Futurological Forecast
Summing up, Matin Mammadli again states with a threat:
“The successful outcome of the peace process between Azerbaijan and Armenia depends largely on the responsible behaviour and constructive approach of both sides. If we do not seize this historic opportunity, it could lead to new security risks in the region.”
Let us decode this in our understanding: that means war, with the guaranteed destruction of Armenia as a state and the massacre of the Armenian population. If that happens, then after the fact, the new friends of official Yerevan from the European Union will, of course, express indignation and regret, and offer help to Armenian refugees.
This rhetoric contains all the components of a future “peace, Azerbaijani‑style.” This, in fact, is what will form the basis for the implementation of the “Real Armenia” project — not in plans and dreams, but in practice.
The EU’s position will be quite unambiguous, given the body of relevant European legislation, political and judicial practice: refugees must return as part of a final settlement. I do not think this applies to Armenian refugees and their descendants, but Azerbaijani ones will, of course, go.
Given the demographic characteristics of the Azerbaijani population and the fact that official Baku will invest huge resources in a sharp demographic increase of precisely this category of the population, Azerbaijan essentially need not do anything else.
Let us indulge in a little futurological reflection. Demography will do everything itself, instead of the army. The pressure of a rapidly growing and aggressively anti‑Armenian Azerbaijani population will make migration of the vast majority of Armenians living in their own country inevitable.
Then a referendum is held, and the Azerbaijani majority, holding full Armenian citizenship, simply votes, in a completely democratic manner, by the best standards of the European Union, for reunification with Azerbaijan as the region of Western Azerbaijan. And that is the end of it.
The example of Israel is the opposite: there, Jews were able to create a new state in the old place after two thousand years of dispersion. The Armenians, however, will lose their own state, re‑established within Russian and Soviet statehood. I do not want to believe that this is exactly what will happen.
Maxim Vaskov — political scientist, professor, exclusively for Realist English
