The fact writes:
One of the most important and most discussed concepts of the last years of the political life of Armenia has become the so-called "peace agenda", which the current authorities present not only as a foreign policy strategy, but also as a key precondition for state existence, security and development. According to the authorities, the danger of a new war in the region continues, and the biggest challenge for Armenia is to avoid another large-scale military conflict.
That's why the "peace agenda" is presented as a vital necessity, as the boundary line, on one side of which is peace and stability, and on the other side, war, with its heavy human, territorial, economic and psychological consequences. It is clear that for a significant part of the society, tired of wars, victims, losses and constant tension, such messages were perceptible, and public fears and concerns formed around security became an important factor in the political struggle.
In fact, a significant part of the recent political discourse has been built on these fears and the idea of the need for peace. However, the key question in evaluating any peace agenda is not how much one side wants peace, but whether the other side also wants to achieve peace. Let's not invent a bicycle. peace cannot be a one-sided process. If one side views peace as a system of compromises, stability and mutual respect, and the other as a way to achieve its own strategic goals, then talks about peace can turn into a process of legitimizing unequal power relations. This is where one of the most important questions for Armenia arises: is Azerbaijan really moving with a peace agenda, or is it only talking about peace as a political and diplomatic tool, simultaneously advancing completely different goals? Developments in recent years show that official Baku's political there is a rather interesting contradiction between rhetoric and actual action.
On the one hand, the Azerbaijani leadership regularly announces the need for a peace treaty on international platforms, talks about the possibilities of new cooperation in the region, the prospects of opening economic ties and development of communications, but on the other hand, the statements and political initiatives continue at the same time, which are difficult to combine with the logic of classical peace. The idea of peace usually implies that the parties give up territorial claims to each other and try to form new rules of coexistence. However, in recent years, the artificial idea of the so-called "Western Azerbaijan", which has long since left the scope of public or academic discussions and turned into a component of the state agenda, has been occupying a greater and greater place in Azerbaijani state politics. This is where one of the biggest strategic dangers for Armenia lies. If in the Armenian political field, the previous formulations regarding the Artsakh issue have gradually decreased in recent years, if the Armenian leadership actually declares that the priority is to ensure peace within the borders of the current Republic of Armenia, if even the issue of the return of Artsakh Armenians is often presented as an unrealistic goal at the official level, then the opposite process is taking place in the Azerbaijani political field. Talks about territorial and historical ambitions are not decreasing in Baku, but on the contrary, they are becoming more institutionalized, receiving greater state support and turning into long-term strategic plans. It is noteworthy that the term "West Azerbaijan" is presented in Baku not as a "historical" or "cultural" project, but as a political concept. Within the framework of that concept, the territory of the Republic of Armenia is presented as the territory of historical residence of Azerbaijanis, and the current existence of Armenia is often described in such terms that actually question the historical legitimacy of Armenian statehood. When such theses are voiced by individual politicians or experts, they can be considered as manifestations of political propaganda. However, when they are presented at conferences organized at the state level, in official documents, in the activities of state-funded structures, the situation takes on a completely different meaning. This means that an ideological basis for future political demands is being formed in Azerbaijan. Any territorial ambition is first formulated as a "historical" or humanitarian issue, then it is presented as a problem of rights restoration, and later it can turn into a political or diplomatic demand. That is why not only the existence of specific demands, but also the ideological environment that is created around these demands is dangerous for Armenia. When one side constantly reduces its political goals and the other side expands its agenda, a dangerous situation arises where the end point of negotiations is constantly being shifted. In other words, any concession does not become the basis of a final agreement, but turns into a starting point for the next demand.
