From the threat of "total annihilation” to the TRIPP "lifeline”

On January 14, when the TRIPP Implementation Framework was published, I was thinking of writing an op-ed on the subject. Having covered foreign policy and international relations for nearly thirty years, I have some understanding of how bilateral documents are prepared, their structure and content.

The document, about ten pages long, appeared unusual in both form and content. It resembled a “memo” summarizing the outcome of another meeting. And it states:

This framework does not impose, nor does it intend to impose, any legal commitments or obligations on Armenia or the United States.”

In other words, it is not a legally binding document.

Anyway, I chose not to write on January 14, as it would have been lost amid the noise raised by the government’s political opponents. But when I saw Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan’s post on January 15, shared by the official page of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and various officials, I decided to write.



This is what Mirzoyan wrote:

“Read it. The document is really good.

It is good for Armenia. Our country is being unblocked and becoming an important hub of major international logistics routes. And this is in no way at the expense of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and jurisdiction of the Republic of Armenia.

It is good for the other side that accepts it, the United States. It is good for our immediate neighbors and all the potential beneficiaries in general. And that’s very good, because otherwise it simply wouldn’t work.

P.S: I don’t envy the conspiracy theorists and those who predict destruction of our society day and night.

Stay well.”

What does “the document is really good” mean? One does not need to be a psychologist to sense that when a FM of five years writes something like that, it signals insecurity. He made that post to somewhat dispel his internal doubts through the comments of his supporters.

And what does “good for all potential beneficiaries” mean? How can any document – whether legally binding or not – be good for everyone in a world that long ago turned into a jungle? Did the catastrophe of 2020 not demonstrate that policymaking based on wishful thinking can be fatal?
I am neither a “conspiracy theorist” nor a “prophet of doom.” But I remember very well how, on the third day of the war, the Speaker of the National Assembly of Armenia, Ararat Mirzoyan, declared:

“This war will end with the complete destruction of the Azerbaijani army, or at least its entire strike potential. It will take the country several dozen years to recover. And this is not a propaganda or inspirational post.”

The attentive reader may note that I have cited these words repeatedly in past articles. That is true. The reason is that I cannot forget and forgive. I am ready to forgive the words uttered in euphoria of the first days of the war, but I am not ready to forgive that Ararat Mirzoyan did not apologize for them.

Since that hasn’t happened, I have the right to ask: maybe the January 15 post is actually propaganda?

On January 15, Nikol Pashinyan stated that “the arrangements should be fixed as quickly as possible in the form of de jure agreements.” In fact, within five months, the parties have only been able to agree on the framework and basic principles that fix the intentions, formulated in very general terms. How much more time is needed to negotiate a full-fledged interstate document, pass domestic procedures, and secure ratification? Considerable time. And the greatest risk is that during this period, Trump’s interest may fade while Aliyev’s appetite may grow.

But is it worth expecting foresight from a leader who, in his eighth year as prime minister, still feels such a strong need for self-affirmation that he seeks to achieve it by placing a “1” state license plate on his official car? 

Our former colleague, who is fighting for the title of “the number one propagandist of the Republic of Armenia,” has recently reserved the right to label those who express opinions that differ from the views of the authorities as advocates of war or participants in “hybrid attacks.” It is possible that after reading this column, he will write that I “don’t want peace” either. I want peace very much, but I know very well that peace cannot be secured by dilettantes or by those driven by personal complexes. At best, they can beg for it. And beggars are never given much.

Ara Tadevosyan is the Director of Mediamax.