YEREVAN—Armenia is prepared to immediately sign and ratify a peace agreement with Azerbaijan, Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan said during the 134th session of the Committee of Foreign Ministers of the Council of Europe, held in Luxembourg. The statement, released by Armenia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reiterates Yerevan’s commitment to lasting peace in the South Caucasus.
“In the current context of geopolitical tension and uncertainty, Armenia remains committed to sustainable peace and prosperity in the region,” Mirzoyan stated on May 14. “The draft peace treaty has been finalized, and Armenia is ready to proceed without delay.”
However, Azerbaijani officials have pushed back on this narrative. Speaking to reporters, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov confirmed that while the draft text was agreed upon in March, key conditions remain unresolved. He stressed that the peace process has several tracks and that Azerbaijan has “legitimate expectations” of Armenia.
“Our expectations relate to the removal of territorial claims against Azerbaijan from Armenia’s constitution and the formal dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, which is no longer relevant following the end of the conflict,” Bayramov said, adding that contacts between the sides are ongoing.
While both sides acknowledge progress on the treaty, Baku’s insistence on constitutional amendments and the disbandment of the OSCE Minsk Group point to significant hurdles. Established in the 1990s to mediate the Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the Minsk Group is now regarded by Azerbaijan as obsolete.
The contrasting positions underscore the fragile state of diplomacy, with Armenia presenting itself as ready for immediate ratification, while Azerbaijan conditions peace on further legal and institutional changes in Yerevan.
Despite publicly declarations of progress, tensions remain high on the ground. Reports of cross-border gunfire continue to surface, highlighting the fragile nature of the ceasefire. Armenia’s Ministry of Defense has reported several instances over the past week of Azerbaijani forces targeting civilian areas in Armenia’s Syunik province.
On May 9, at approximately 10:20 p.m. local time, Azerbaijani units opened fire on the village of Khnatsakh, damaging the roof of a residential home. The house was uninhabited at the time, and no casualties were reported. A similar incident was recorded on May 7, when Azerbaijani fire struck residential property in the same village. In both cases, Armenian authorities have called on Baku to investigate and provide public explanations.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Defense accused Armenian forces of opening fire on Azerbaijani positions in the eastern and southeastern border sectors on May 10 and 13. Armenia’s Ministry of Defense has categorically denied these allegations, stating they do not reflect reality.
Local officials in Khnatsakh have confirmed continued nighttime gunfire, further undermining confidence in the stability of the border. “The situation is calm now, but as usual, there was gunfire throughout the night,” said village head Seyran Mirzoyan on May 10.
As border tensions simmer and diplomatic channels proclaim readiness for peace, the push for an Armenia-Azerbaijan treaty is becoming increasingly intertwined with domestic political strategy in Yerevan.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s ruling Civil Contract party has stated it will not seek alliances ahead of the 2026 parliamentary elections. However, analysts suggest this stance reflects broader challenges: the party lacks credible political allies and faces stagnant public support.
According to an analysis published by EADaily, this political landscape is unlikely to change in the ruling party’s favor before next summer. Despite the appearance of political confidence, the governing bloc’s limited popularity means that a hypothetical alliance with smaller, pro-Western groups, such as the “Republic” party, would likely fail to significantly improve its electoral prospects. These groups, too, struggle to command meaningful public backing.
As the next election cycle approaches, observers speculate that Pashinyan may issue top-down directives to replicate the success of his 2021 campaign. But reviving that past momentum may require more than grassroots mobilization. In this context, securing a landmark peace agreement with Azerbaijan is a central pillar of the prime minister’s strategy—not only as a foreign policy goal, but also as a campaign platform.
The peace deal, finalized in draft form in March 2025, remains contingent on two key Azerbaijani demands: the removal of territorial references from Armenia’s constitution and the formal dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group. While Pashinyan has indicated that the latter is feasible, the former presents a greater challenge—both procedurally and politically.
One scenario under consideration is aligning a constitutional referendum with the upcoming parliamentary elections. Justice Minister Srbuhi Galyan has stated that the new constitution’s text must be ready by the time of the elections, suggesting the government is aiming to coordinate the two events. However, analysts warn that placing both high-stakes questions on the same ballot could significantly increase political risk for Civil Contract. A rejection of the constitutional changes might jeopardize both the peace agenda and the party’s hold on power.
If Pashinyan pursues this dual-track approach, his electoral message will likely hinge on a stark choice: peace or the threat of renewed war. Should he remain in power, the treaty could be framed as a necessary, albeit painful, compromise. If not, his party may shift its messaging toward national security risks under alternative leadership.
Ultimately, Civil Contract may bet that, when faced with a choice between uncertain change and a “bitter peace,” voters will opt for the latter—preserving both the existing government and a fragile regional stability.
Amid political tensions in Armenia, former Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian has issued a sharply critical statement calling for Pashinyan’s immediate resignation. Oskanian described the country’s current state as “tragic, catastrophic and nightmarish,” holding the prime minister directly responsible for the nation’s decline following the 2020 war and its aftermath.
Oskanian emphasized that while opinions on Pashinyan range from accusations of betrayal to claims of incompetence, all are understandable given the gravity of Armenia’s losses. He rejected conspiracy theories that suggest Pashinyan was installed by foreign powers, arguing instead that the prime minister came to power on a wave of popular support and that it is now up to the people to correct that mistake.
“Pashinyan did not come with a plan to destroy the country,” Oskanian wrote. “He was simply unprepared, inexperienced and unaware of how to lead a nation in a complex geopolitical environment.” He argued that Pashinyan’s continued self-justifications and appeals to “new ideas” have created a vicious cycle, rendering him incapable of effective governance or diplomacy.
Oskanian added that the prime minister’s rhetoric increasingly aligns with Azerbaijani interests—not as part of any deliberate betrayal, but as a consequence of his inability to understand or defend Armenia’s national priorities. This, Oskanian warned, leaves the country more vulnerable to further irreversible losses.
The former foreign minister cautioned that Armenia now faces a dual threat: escalating external pressure from Azerbaijan and a growing risk of internal political instability. He stressed that unless Pashinyan voluntarily resigns, the country risks entering a dangerous period of civil strife and power usurpation.
“Pashinyan must resign for a simple reason: he lacks both the ability to lead and the support of any credible international partners,” Oskanian stated. “He poses a serious threat to Armenia’s security, prosperity and unity.”
Still, Oskanian offered a path forward—calling on Pashinyan to step down peacefully, acknowledge his failures and prepare to face legal accountability. He also urged the opposition to support such a transition, warning that any other scenario could devolve into a destructive battle for power.
As Armenia approaches a critical political juncture, Oskanian’s message reflects growing calls for a change in leadership—and a deepening sense of urgency to avoid a wider national crisis.
Hoory Minoyan
Latest posts by Hoory Minoyan (see all)
- Faithful rally as rift widens between Church and prime minister - June 11, 2025
- The Region in Brief - June 11, 2025
- The Region in Brief - June 4, 2025
This “peace treaty”, if one can call it that, will be a “Carthaginian peace” imposed on Armenia by Azerbaijan. It is “victor’s justice” pure and simple. The question is, to what extent is Pashinyan willing to appease Azerbaijan, and to what extent is the Armenian electorate willing to acquiesce to the fate of their country?
Pashinyan is a BIG mouth selling slowly but surely Armenia within a very few years to azeri and turcs
He is a traitor…
Amid political tensions in Armenia, former Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian has issued a sharply critical statement calling for Pashinyan’s immediate resignation. Oskanian described the country’s current state as “tragic, catastrophic and nightmarish,” holding the prime minister directly responsible for the nation’s decline following the 2020 war and its aftermath.
However, Oskanian’s call for leadership change faces an undeniable truth: the current opposition—composed largely of figures from Armenia’s former ruling elite—remains deeply unpopular and widely discredited. Many Armenians continue to associate these figures with past corruption, economic mismanagement, and the kind of opaque, self-serving governance that triggered the 2018 revolution in the first place.
Although some segments of the population are critical of the current administration’s handling of the post-war crisis, few believe that returning to the past offers a viable alternative. The opposition’s inability to articulate a credible vision for the future, combined with its lack of broad-based public support, leaves it ill-equipped to unify the country or represent Armenia’s interests on the international stage.
Calls for Pashinyan’s resignation, while reflecting growing frustration, do not automatically translate into a qualified or trustworthy replacement. With no clearly defined or widely supported alternative, the risk of political instability looms large—especially if the opposition fails to evolve beyond its discredited legacy.
Armenia now faces immense challenges—from the drafting of a new constitution to securing its borders and charting a path toward lasting peace. Navigating these challenges requires not only change, but responsible, forward-looking leadership—something the opposition has yet to convincingly offer.
The greatest tragedy was not being able to compromised from a position of strength.
During a summit in Tirana, Albania on 16 May 2025, the Turkish dictator Erdogan, with fellow Azerbaijani dictator Aliyev at his side, hailed Pashinyan, like a master hails his servant or slave, and Pashinyan came to them meekly and he was constantly in a submissive mode in front of them. On top of that, Pashinyan sat on a chair while Aliyev sat on a couch during a conversation, again like a servant or a slave facing his master. This may sound trivial to some, but optics do matter, and the symbolism and irony of his predicament, will not be lost to many Armenians, let alone to Turks and Azeris. Turkish and Azerbaijani media and social media have been mocking Pashinyan’s submissive posture. This is of course not the only encounter with these two Turkic thugs, where Pashinyan was in a submissive mode, but this is the most blatant and humiliating so far. Armenians have been humiliated enough by Pashinyan’s disastrous policies, he adds insult to injury, by crouching before these two Turkic war criminals.
I don’t know if Armenian Weekly allows the posting of links, but if it does, here are some links of this encounter in Turkish and Azerbaijani news websites (they can be deciphered via Google Translate):
https://oxu.az/siyaset/bir-gorusun-psixoloji-mesaji-ilham-eliyevin-dominantligi-ve-pasinyanin-gerginliyi
https://www.facebook.com/stargazete/videos/pa%C5%9Finyan%C4%B1n-oturu%C5%9Fu-alay-konusu-oldu-resmen-s%C3%BCt-d%C3%B6km%C3%BC%C5%9F-kediazerbaycan-cumhurba%C5%9Fka/1223525449185566/
https://www.facebook.com/turkiyegazetesi/videos/erdo%C4%9Fan-aliyevi-%C3%A7a%C4%9F%C4%B1rd%C4%B1-pa%C5%9Finyan-pe%C5%9Flerine-tak%C4%B1ld%C4%B1-cumhurba%C5%9Fkan%C4%B1-recep-tayyip-er/1777501649775983/
With the inept Pashinyan and his more inept foreign minister Mirzoyan, one should expect nothing but humiliation.
Pashinyan is a defeatist.
If Armenia had a real man as its leader, he’d realise that Armenia’s position has improved dramatically.
India’s defeat of Pakistan has demoralised the Turks, as they were one of Pakistan’s main war suppliers.
It has burst the Turks’ claim that they are the champions of Islam.
They have been humbled.
Now is the time to face down the Turks.
Will it happen?
Not with Pashinyan in charge.
Armenia is crying out for real leadership.
Every Armenian must be aware of one simple fact : India’s victory is our victory too.
Now is the time to capitaise on that fact.
Armenia must build close ties with both India and China in the East and with Serbia and Greece in the West. The Kurds must be supplied with arms, weapons and training. Israel must be warned that if they do not stop their close ties with Azerbaijan then Armenia will recognise Palestine.
These are all practical policies that will give Armenia international clout and face down the Turks.
And yet none of this will happen as long as Pashinyan is in power.
He must go.
MAGA = Make Armenia Great Again!
Serbia, of all places? Huh? Serbia is not in the West for your information.
Serbia is to the west of Armenia.
You need to learn Geography.
Serbia although distancing from Russia and has even via other nations supplied weapons to Ukraine but not openly and votes against Russia invasion of Ukraine. Is still considered as not being part of ‘ the west ‘ which is more of political than geographical expression.
Some people’s quotes about needing to learn geography are missing the point and ignoring the context.
Geographic realities are obvious to anyone with any sense of reality this is the world we live in
Serbia is northwest of Armenia. but it is west of your country, that’s why you confused…
Peoples’ comments are not appearing in the comment sections, even though people have posted their comments. Is there a technical problem going on?
@Steve M
I thought I was the only one it was happening to!
Relief, in a way, that it was a systematic fault!
@Robert Whig
Armenia recognised Palestine under Pashinyan government something which you said a year ago that he being a coward and traitor wouldn’t do although for various reasons Armenia declined post independence to recognise Palestine.
As for India it’s interesting that Armenia has good relationship with India yet so does unfriendly to Armenia; Israel have good relationship with India. Israel in turn has good relationship with Azerbaijan who in turn has good relationship with Pakistan. Perhaps an interesting case of managing ones differences.
China seems via it’s belt and road initiative and friendship with Pakistan to be closer to Azerbaijan in leanings nowadays.
Although India took loses it’s preposterous to assume that this means Armenia is post the clash between ally India and hostile Pakistan in turn ally of Turkey and Azerbaijan that Armenia is now upon the basis of this clash able to face down the Turks, such would only be possible with bolstering of Armenian position and Turkey Azerbaijan having significant reverses and misfortunes, even the recent Istanbul earthquake wasn’t exactly catastrophic.
Pashinyan declared today on Monday, that he will personally initiate constitutional changes should the Armenian Constitutional Court not approve the “peace deal” with Azerbaijan, when it is signed. In other words, he will violate a Constitutional Court ruling and thus Armenia’s Constitution, if it blocks his appeasement plan. And there are still many Armenians who doubt and dismiss this man’s eagerness to appease Azerbaijan (as well as Turkey), to the detriment of Armenia, and even support him and his traitorous plans.