Pashinyan`s revisionism will not secure Armenia`s future - Vartan  Oskanian

ArmInfo.Armenia's former FM Vartan Oskanian has posted the following message on his Facebook account:

At the Armenian embassy in Washington yesterday, Prime Minister Nikol  Pashinyan once again resorted to manipulation, attempting to justify  his defeatist approach under the guise of redefining Armenia's  national interests. His rhetoric may seem pragmatic to some, but  beneath the surface lies a troubling trend of historical  revisionism-one that endangers Armenia's long-term security and  national identity. National interests must evolve in response to  geopolitical realities, but they cannot be built on the erasure or  distortion of historical truths. For a small and vulnerable country  like Armenia, maintaining a clear and unwavering historical narrative  is not just a matter of pride-it is a strategic necessity.

The loss of Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023 was a defining moment  for Armenia, forcing the country to confront harsh new realities.  However, acknowledging reality does not mean surrendering historical  facts or diluting national identity. Armenia must redefine its  interests, not rewrite its history. More importantly, it must  determine the most effective, non-confrontational means of pursuing  those interests.

At its core, Armenia's national interest must remain the preservation  of its sovereignty and security. This requires strengthening military  capabilities, enhancing intelligence operations, ensuring strategic  deterrence, and practicing prudent diplomacy.

Beyond security and diplomacy, the Armenian government has a duty to  preserve and assert historical truth-not manipulate it for political  convenience. Pashinyan's attempts to downplay Armenia's historical  claims and revise narratives to accommodate external pressures do not  serve national interests; they undermine them. Easing tensions with  Turkey over the genocide issue does not require denying that the  genocide occurred. Rather, Armenia can assert that Turkey's  non-recognition is not an obstacle to normalization while tempering  its pursuit of international recognition. Likewise, addressing  territorial concerns with Turkey does not mean erasing the historical  existence of Western Armenia; it simply requires affirming that  Armenia has no territorial claims. And on Nagorno-Karabakh,  acknowledging its centuries-old Armenian heritage and affirming the  right of its displaced population to return with security and dignity  is vastly different from erasing its past, present, and future  existence.

Pashinyan fails to grasp that diplomacy is a two-way street-it  requires mutual engagement. His appeasement of Azerbaijan is neither  valued nor effective, doing nothing to alter Baku's aggressive and  expansionist posture toward Armenia. His so-called realism is deeply  flawed, stemming from ignorance, a fundamental misreading of  geopolitical realities, and a primary focus on preserving his own  position- leaving Armenia increasingly vulnerable to further threats.

Ultimately, national resilience is not built on denial but on a firm  grasp of historical truths coupled with strategic adaptability.  Pashinyan's approach, which prioritizes short-term appeasement over  historical continuity, is a dangerous gamble. Armenia's survival and  sovereignty depend not on rewriting history but on learning from  it-leveraging its past to strengthen its future rather than allowing  external pressures to dictate its national narrative.

Earlier, the Armenian Prime Minister stated the need to rethink the  events of 1915. He also hinted that the agenda for international  recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire was  allegedly dictated by external forces at the time.