The South Caucasus is currently undergoing one of the most significant and forward-looking periods in its modern history. The complete restoration of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and sovereignty has brought an end to a long-standing conflict that claimed the lives of thousands of people and has created a new geopolitical reality in the region. Today, both at the regional and global levels, the primary objective is to achieve a lasting and sustainable peace based on the principles of international law. However, international practice has repeatedly demonstrated that peace is measured not only by agreements signed at the negotiating table and by formal political statements, but also by the domestic policies of states and the sincere contribution of international actors to this process.

After the Second Karabakh War, Azerbaijan proposed five peace principles grounded in international law, to the Armenian side. Following, it supplied oil products to help meet Armenia’s energy needs and lifted restrictions on the transit of goods to Armenia through its territory.

Unfortunately, despite Azerbaijan’s consistent efforts and initiatives aimed at achieving a lasting and sustainable peace, attempts remain in Armenia and among some of its external patrons to preserve the harmful illusions of the past, artificially sustain the remnants of the dissolved separatist regime, and reorganize them under the guise of various civil society organizations. Such activities undoubtedly inflict direct and significant damage on the process of normalization of relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Despite repeated statements by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on the end of the so-called “Karabakh movement” and the acceptance of new political realities, as well as Yerevan’s declared commitment to the swift signing of a final peace agreement, the continuing gap between official rhetoric and domestic political reality is cause for serious concern. A closer examination of behind-the-scenes developments and the domestic political agenda reveals that certain radical circles in Armenia are systematically trying to pass on separatist ideas to future generations and to transform the syndrome of defeat into an aggressive form of revanchism. The greatest threat to the post-conflict period stems not from actual military confrontations, but rather from ideological provocations carried out under the guise of civil society organizations and aimed at poisoning public consciousness. Moreover, when state institutions create official conditions for activities that run counter to the cause of peace, it inevitably raises serious questions about the sincerity of the political will behind the declared commitment to normalization and reconciliation.

One of the most significant examples of this situation is the so-called “Shushi University of Technology,” which operates with the authorization of Armenia’s Ministry of Justice. Officially registered as a foundation, the institution has also been granted a license to issue degrees in a number of academic disciplines by Armenia’s Ministry of Education, Science, Culture and Sports. Of particular concern is the fact that, with financial backing from segments of the Armenian diaspora and even from the embassies of certain foreign states, this organization is engaged not only in educational activities but also in systematic propaganda campaigns. One of the most revealing examples of such an activity was an event held in April at Yerevan State University. During the event, a student affiliated with the abovementioned foundation presented a provocative game entitled “The Path of Artsakh” to a youth audience. Projects of this nature are employed as instruments of visual and psychological influence aimed at fostering utopian, aggressive, and revanchist attitudes among younger generations, reinforcing the notion of “lost territories,” and creating a favorable social environment for the emergence of new bloody conflicts in the future. A matter of particular concern is that this project, which undermines the peace process, received support from the Swiss humanitarian foundation “Kaza”.

Revanchist tendencies and propaganda campaigns are not confined to youth-oriented initiatives; they are also promoted under the cover of international events. A striking example was the “Silicon Mountains” summit held on June 3-4 in the Armenian capital, Yerevan. This scientific and practical forum dedicated to innovation and digitalization was held this year under a slogan referencing the monument “We Are Our Mountains,” which for many years served as one of the symbols of the now-dissolved separatist regime. Particularly troubling is the participation of Armenian officials in such an event, despite repeated declarations of a commitment to peace with neighboring countries. If the Armenian authorities are genuinely prepared to leave behind the darkest chapters of conflict once and for all, then why do state representatives take part in events that subtly employ separatist symbolism and, in doing so, confer legitimacy upon it?

The chronology of events further suggests that this is neither a private initiative undertaken by a small group nor a mere coincidence, but rather the activity of a broad, multi-layered, and coordinated network. Notably, one day before the opening of the summit, on June 2, a ceremony unveiling a replica of the “We Are Our Mountains” monument was held in the Russian city of Yessentuki, under the auspices of the Armenian diaspora.

Against the backdrop of these ongoing developments, the most fundamental threat to peace remains the de facto legitimization of radical forces at the state level. It is well known that the Washington Agreements of August 8, 2025, created the conditions necessary for the full and irreversible consolidation of stability in the region. The Armenian state was expected to adopt a firmer stance toward revanchist forces and to terminate the legal activities of such groups. Moreover, representatives of the Armenian authorities did, in fact, make public statements emphasizing the need to neutralize revanchist structures. The reality, however, tells a different story. Armenia’s Ministry of Justice continues to register such organizations, thereby allowing them to operate within a legal framework. It is sufficient to examine the official registration timeline. On April 1, the public organization “Union of Volunteers of Artsakh” was registered, followed by the “Foundation for the Preservation and Restoration of the Artsakh Heritage”, which was registered on April 23. All of these structures represent radical associations oriented not toward the integration of societies but toward sustaining renewed hostility. The registration of such “public organizations” by a state preparing to sign a peace treaty is simply a manifestation of political hypocrisy.

It must also be noted that one of the key elements of a peace process is engagement with youth, with genuine and sustainable peace depending directly on future generations. However, in Armenia’s case, serious grounds for concern remain in this regard as well. Among the officially registered organizations is the public association “Eagles of Artsakh-Commandos,” which is engaged in the practical training of young people in a spirit of radicalism and aggression. Under the guise of a non-governmental organization, this structure openly conducts military-style training for young people, instructing them in combat tactics, sabotage activities, and the handling of firearms. In light of such facts, a legitimate question arises: what purpose is served by the conduct of such paramilitary training among the civilian population in a society that seeks to present itself to the international community as a peaceful state committed to coexistence with its neighbors? In essence, this process creates the effect of a “time bomb” that could, in the future, pose a serious threat both to Azerbaijan and to the security of the entire region.

This consistent chain of interconnected and clearly anti-Azerbaijani facts leads to a single, inevitable conclusion: the disease of separatism has not yet been fully eradicated either from the public consciousness in Armenia or, more importantly, from the functioning mechanisms of certain state institutions. Against the backdrop of this troubling situation, Azerbaijan’s demand for amendments to the Constitution of Armenia within the framework of the peace process once again demonstrates its vital importance, historical justification, and compliance with international law. The fundamental requirement formally raised by Azerbaijan during negotiations on the peace treaty is neither a political whim nor an attempt to dictate terms. It is a key security guarantee for the region for decades to come.

As long as the Constitution of Armenia contains references to the Declaration of Independence, which includes territorial claims against Azerbaijan, and as long as similar provisions remain in force in other legislative acts based on that document, radical forces will continue to use them as a form of legal shield, thereby legitimizing their activities. For this reason, Azerbaijan justifiably calls for not a formal and temporary document designed merely to buy time, but for a durable and legally unassailable peace. The facts presented clearly demonstrate that there is no alternative to this principled position taken by Azerbaijan.

Find the original article here