The recent statement by Armenian parliamentary speaker Alen Simonyan has stirred public debate. At first glance, the high-ranking official appears to be reflecting on security guarantees, peace, and stability. Yet, upon closer scrutiny, his words reveal a darker, more cynical reality.<\/p>\n
Speaking at the party congress, Alen Simonyan stated: \u00abArmenia is the biggest guarantor of Azerbaijan's security, and Azerbaijan is the guarantor of the Republic of Armenia\u00bb. He went on to suggest that many forces are eager to draw the two countries into a new war. That phrase lingered in the air, as if awaiting public digestion. But once stripped of political double-talk, the conclusions that emerge are unlikely to please even the speaker himself.<\/p>\n
We are witnessing a well-known phenomenon in psychology and law: under pressure or in heated discourse, individuals may reveal truths they have carefully concealed \u2014 consciously or unconsciously. In this case, while attempting to defend his political force, Alen Simonyan inadvertently exposed its real, undeclared, and vital interests.<\/p>\n
Let us examine his words more closely. Translated from the language of political demagogy into plain terms, the message becomes clear: Azerbaijan is not the guarantor of Armenia\u2019s security, but of the security of Alen Simonyan\u2019s political party. The ruling Civil Contract Party relies neither on the Armenian people, nor on the army, nor on international alliances. Its true guarantor is Azerbaijan. The security of this political force and its leadership depends entirely on one condition: remaining in power. Losing that power would inevitably bring questions they are unable to answer.<\/p>\n
These are the questions that concern anyone who has followed developments in the country in recent years. They relate to treason \u2014 the transfer of historically Armenian lands under the guise of a \u201cpeace\u201d process, the displacement of THE indigenous population, and the prioritization of a neighboring adversary\u2019s interests over national sovereignty and security. They also concern corruption, abuse of power, and misappropriation of state funds \u2014 issues that have followed this political team since it came to power.<\/p>\n
In this context, the speaker\u2019s statement no longer appears as an abstract geopolitical thesis. Rather, it reads as a logical \u2014 though belated \u2014 link in a chain of implicit confessions from the ruling political circle.\nNikol Pashinyan has also recently stated that a defeat of his party in elections could lead to a new war as early as September. Does this not amount to direct political pressure \u2014 an ultimatum to the public: \u00abEither me, or war\u00bb?<\/p>\n
Simonyan\u2019s statement fits within the same narrative \u2014 a continuation of that message. He simply expressed it in more elaborate terms, adding references to \u201cnew wars across the world\u201d and \u201ca point that must be strengthened.\u201d Yet the essence remains unchanged: to persuade Armenian society that there is no alternative to the current authorities, presenting them as the sole guarantor of \u201cstability\u201d in relations with Baku. Any political shift that challenges the outcomes of the current policy risks being labeled as \u201cwarmongering.\u201d<\/p>\n
In this sense, Simonyan is, in a way, correct: Armenia under the Civil Contract has indeed become a guarantor of Azerbaijan\u2019s security. This is both literal and deeply troubling. The current leadership has, step by step, reduced the risks and costs for Azerbaijan in pursuing its revanchist ambitions. Without this policy \u2014 marked by the gradual disarmament of Armenia, both morally and materially \u2014 it is doubtful that Ilham Aliyev would even imagine symbolically \u201cdrinking tea\u201d in Shushi, a town symbolizing the military glory of the Armenian freedom fighters.<\/p>\n
This leadership has transformed a once victorious army into a passive observer, dismantled elements of the national security system, and left the country increasingly vulnerable. It has made concessions unprecedented in the history of international relations. All this is disguised by sweet talk about peace and a new era.<\/p>\n
Instead of a conclusion: whose security, whose guarantees?<\/strong><\/p>\n What we are witnessing is not a mere slip of the tongue or a terminological error, but a clear and revealing admission. It reflects a governing group for whom the concepts of \u201cstate,\u201d \u201chomeland,\u201d and \u201cruling party\u201d have merged into one. The party\u2019s security is equated with state security; the loss of power is equated with the threat of war. And the guarantor of this fragile and deeply corrupt structure is, paradoxically, the adversary itself.<\/p>\n This is the very \u201cnew point\u201d the parliamentary speaker referred to so emphatically \u2014 a point of national humiliation, of dependence on Baku\u2019s goodwill, where the interests of a narrow political group are placed above those of the nation. Strengthening such a \u201cpoint\u201d would mean eroding what remains of state sovereignty and national dignity.<\/p>\n The only question that remains is this: how long will the security of this political group be presented as the security of the entire nation? And when will the true guarantors of Armenia\u2019s security \u2014 its people, its army, its history, and its will to endure \u2014 demand accountability from those who have sacrificed them for power and short-term political gain?<\/p>\n <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The recent statement by Armenian parliamentary speaker Alen Simonyan has stirred public debate. At first glance, the high-ranking official appears to be reflecting on security guarantees, peace, and stability. Yet, upon closer scrutiny, his words reveal a darker, more cynical reality.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7697,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[157],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7696","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/armtribunal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7696","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/armtribunal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/armtribunal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/armtribunal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/armtribunal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7696"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/armtribunal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7696\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7699,"href":"https:\/\/armtribunal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7696\/revisions\/7699"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/armtribunal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7697"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/armtribunal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/armtribunal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/armtribunal.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}