ArmInfo.The idea of concessions on Karabakh arose in the Armenian political discourse from the moment of the definition of political identity, the construction of a state in Armenia by this very Karabakh. Sergey Markedonov, the leading researcher at the Euro-Atlantic Security Center of the MGIMO Institute for International Studies, expressed this opinion at the international "Caucasus in the 21st Century" conference organized by the Caucasus Institute in Yerevan. "In my opinion, the concessions on Karabakh are far from the result of the events of 2020, it all started much earlier.
In November 2020, we witnessed not only a radical breakdown of the status quo from 1994 in the Karabakh conflict as a result of the military defeat of Armenia. It became clear that this whole situation was largely the result of many years of processes concerning the state and political identity of post-Soviet Armenia, "he said. In this much broader context, Markedonov considers it obvious the issue of the extent to which Nagorno-Karabakh remains the central element of Armenian political and state identity today. To understand the degree of readiness of the Armenian society to fight for Karabakh, whether it considers it a priority, the future foreign policy positioning of Armenia, in the analyst's opinion, it is necessary to turn to the events of 30 years ago, having analyzed the situation in the last years of the USSR.
In this light, Markedonov stressed that it was Karabakh that played a mobilizing role in Armenia's struggle for independence. That is an external factor, given that it was not formally part of the Armenian SSR. In other words, it was Miatsum that awakened the Armenians' striving for independence. After that, this movement quickly became overgrown with anti-Sovietism, which largely predetermined the formation of the Armenian national-state project.
Accordingly, giving this largely internal problem a foreign policy character. The analyst noted that the first serious intellectual dispute on the issue of the price of Karabakh for Armenia took place in 1997 in the form of the publication of the then underestimated, famous article by Levon Ter-Petrosyan. Even then, the first president of Armenia clearly formulated that it is possible to defend the Armenian identity, but it is extremely difficult, given that the price is quite costly: regional isolation, economic lag, unilateral foreign policy dependence, etc. But in 1998, the idea of possible compromises on honorable terms was rejected. "In the future, we saw the instrumentalization of the Karabakh factor - Karabakh now began to associate with the retention of power in Armenia by the Karabakh clan. This became an extremely important moment in the absolutization of the value of Karabakh in the minds of the masses. The situation became even worse in March 2008 as a result of rumors that mass riots in Yerevan were suppressed by the Karabakh military, etc. As a result, the idea of Karabakh in Armenia began to form as a burden that impedes its development, "he said. Thus, the situation that had developed by 2020, according to the analyst, was not only related to Nikol Pashinyan's position. Noting the readiness of society to transgress the country's leader in the past, Markedonov recalled that in 2020 there was no powerful surge in the volunteer movement in Armenia. Which allows us to speak about the fatigue of the Armenian society from the Karabakh conflict. And the events of November 2020 should be appropriately characterized as a consequence of this fatigue.