At the second edition of the Yerevan Dialogue international forum, Nikol Pashinyan delivered a speech emphasizing the establishment of peace with Azerbaijan.
In his speech Pashinyan announced that Armenia is prepared to sign the finalized peace agreement as negotiations have concluded. He noted that Azerbaijan has introduced two preconditions delaying the signing.
- The dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group
- Amendments to Armenia’s constitution
Pashinyan stated that Armenia is amenable to the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group and proposed that both countries jointly apply to the OSCE to dissolve these structures concurrently with signing the peace agreement.
However, he highlighted that “The dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group is acceptable to us, but we want to ensure that Azerbaijan does not seek to resolve the conflict on its territory while creating new disputes over Armenian territory”, implying to the narrative of “Western Azerbaijan”, which the Azerbaijan regime is conveying.
Moreover, Pashinyan announced that once the peace agreement is signed it will be reviewed by Armenia’s Constitutional Court to ensure compliance with the national constitution, meaning that Armenia is ready to make changes to its constitution.
He stated that, “If the Constitutional Court finds any contradiction, I am prepared to initiate constitutional amendments, because we must not miss this chance for peace”, showing the government’s willingness to sacrifice deeply rooted historical narratives and territorial claims enshrined in the constitution in favor of the peace agreement.
The list of invited participants to the Yerevan Dialogue 2025 also drew public scrutiny, with some sparking controversy. Among them was Joshua Kucera, a journalist who was previously denied entry to Armenia, raising questions about the apparent shift in the government’s stance towards certain foreign media figures. Also invited was Craig Oliphant, a former UK foreign adviser, whose participation in an Azerbaijani-organised forum in Stepanakert during Azerbaijan’s control of the region raised questions among Armenians.
The inclusion of such figures has led to opinions that the Armenian government may be attempting to reshape its international image – a move that some interpret as a concerning departure from principled positions on sovereignty and historical accountability.
Overall, the Yerevan Dialogue 2025 served as a platform for discussing Armenia’s evolving political identity. Pashinyan’s speech marked an interesting step towards finalising the peace with Azerbaijan, while the controversies surrounding certain invited guests underscored the tension between the government’s desire for international legitimacy and domestic sensitivities. As Armenia navigates the path toward regional stability, the government’s balancing act between pragmatism,principle and public perception will remain under close scrutiny.
