Military expert Hayk Nahapetyan, in his author\u2019s program on the politik.am website, addressed an issue that public attention is actively being diverted from \u2014 the real meaning of statements made by the Azerbaijani leadership and how they are distorted within Armenia. This is not a matter of misinterpretation, but of deliberate substitution. In effect, society is presented with a convenient illusion of \u201cpeace,\u201d while the real agenda is being shaped through pressure and coercion.<\/p>\n
The expert\u2019s analysis focuses on statements by the Azerbaijani president, which, despite attempts to portray them as \u201coutdated,\u201d remain relevant. According to Nahapetyan, Baku\u2019s core position has not changed: it still refuses to definitively recognize Armenia\u2019s territorial integrity and remains ready to revise any agreement depending on circumstances.<\/p>\n
These statements contain two fundamental points. First, Baku explicitly asserts that no agreement carries guaranteed legal force and can be revised at any time. Second, its declared \u201creadiness for peace\u201d is accompanied by a failure to recognize Armenia\u2019s territorial integrity. In such a context, Nahapetyan views discussions of \u201cdurable peace\u201d as deliberate attempts to mislead society.<\/p>\n
One of the key issues he highlights is the de facto opening of an air \u201ccorridor\u201d over Armenia\u2019s territory without its consent. Not only has Aliyev acknowledged this, but he has also publicly justified it by referring to \u201cnorms of international aviation law,\u201d stating that Azerbaijan is already using Armenia\u2019s airspace for its own purposes. This is not a diplomatic nuance or interpretation; it is, in essence, a claim that part of Armenia\u2019s sovereign airspace has been effectively appropriated.<\/p>\n
This raises a critical question: when and on what grounds did Armenia lose control over its airspace? The authorities have provided no answer. Why have the government, parliament, and so-called international partners not deemed it necessary to respond \u2014 even publicly \u2014 to such statements? In this context, silence is not neutrality; it amounts to consent.<\/p>\n
Against this backdrop, discussions about the \u201cZangezur Corridor\u201d take on a different meaning. These are no longer hypothetical routes but part of a process that has effectively begun \u2014 first in the airspace, and potentially on land as well. If the initial step met no resistance, there is little reason to expect future steps to encounter any.<\/p>\n
According to Nahapetyan, Baku\u2019s subsequent demands fit logically into this framework of pressure. Among them is the proposed return of \u201chundreds of thousands of Azerbaijani refugees,\u201d although historical figures are significantly lower. This framing serves as a tool of demographic and territorial pressure. Under international law, such claims could obligate the receiving country to provide housing, security, and social infrastructure \u2014 requirements that Armenia lacks the resources to fulfill. As such, this constitutes an inherently unfulfillable demand that may later be used as a pretext for coercive pressure.<\/p>\n
At the same time, there is a financial and legal dimension. Baku has raised the issue of compensation claims amounting to tens or even hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars. These figures are not incidental; they are deliberately set at unattainable levels, paving the way for an alternative scenario \u2014 territorial compensation. The underlying logic is stark: if you cannot pay, you concede territory.<\/p>\n
Another issue of particular concern is the discourse surrounding so-called \u201cwar reparations\u201d and related accusations. These statements are not intended solely for a domestic audience; they aim to establish a legal basis for future claims. Such narratives do not disappear amid information noise \u2014 they become part of a long-term strategic framework.<\/p>\n
A central element of Nahapetyan\u2019s argument is his rejection of the claim that war is inevitable if Pashinyan\u2019s Civil Contract party fails to secure victory in the upcoming parliamentary elections. He characterizes such assertions as instruments of political blackmail, designed to maintain power through fear. In his view, decisions regarding large-scale military action are not made in isolation but depend on the broader balance of power among major global actors. From this perspective, claims of \u201cinevitable war\u201d constitute domestic propaganda rather than an accurate reflection of the military reality. Society, he argues, is being presented with a simplified and coercive formula: either the continuation of the current authorities or war. At the same time, the authorities themselves acknowledge that even massive increases in military spending cannot guarantee security.<\/p>\n
In a broader context, Nahapetyan also challenges the narrative of a \u201chybrid war\u201d allegedly waged by Russia against Armenia. According to him, the real pressure is concrete and originates from Azerbaijan and Turkey across military, economic, and informational domains. Attempts to portray Russia as the primary source of threat, he argues, serve to politically misorient society.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the picture that emerges is clear: steadily escalating demands backed by force and legal claims, concessions made without public debate, and a domestic policy built on instilling fear. This constitutes a unified trajectory leading toward a loss of sovereignty.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n