Yerevan: At a time when peace has become a tangible item on the political agenda in the South Caucasus, the resurgence of revanchist rhetoric in Armenia raises serious concern. In particular, the political groups led by former presidents Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan are reviving the traditional ‘security fear’ narrative in opposition to regional stability and peace initiatives.
According to Azeri-Press News Agency, the main goal of these two politicians is to avoid responsibility for their political past and to gain new legitimacy through the syndrome of defeat. Experts suggest they are trying to turn tension into political profit.
‘For Kocharyan and Sargsyan, conflict is not only ideological but also a means of political revival,’ says Armenian analyst Vardanyan. The new realities that emerged after the war, especially the regional cooperation models initiated by Azerbaijan, have significantly narrowed their sphere of influence. Therefore, they try to keep the spirit of ‘revenge’ alive within society, undermining attempts at stability and cooperation.
Zaur Mammadov, Advisor at the Academy of Public Administration under the President of Azerbaijan and Chairman of the Baku Political Scientists Club, emphasized that Kocharyan and Sargsyan, driven by personal resentment, wounded egos, and lost privileges, still believe they can return to power, living under the illusion of a ‘historic mission’ while refusing to accept the new realities.
The activities of the Kocharyan-Sargsyan duo are not limited to the political arena-they are also manifested in the social and religious spheres. They systematically exploit the traumatic state of the Karabakh Armenians and the influence of the Armenian Apostolic Church. This serves as both a tool of domestic political pressure and a mechanism to manipulate public emotions.
‘The Church has long been a guardian of national identity, but today it has become a tool of political influence for certain circles,’ notes Armenian sociologist Davtyan. These circles seek political dividends by exploiting the social and psychological problems of the Armenians who voluntarily left Karabakh, using the Church’s ideological power to promote the thesis of ‘resistance, not peace.’ As a result, pragmatic thinking is replaced by emotional reaction within Armenian society.
According to Mammadov, the fact that the people no longer take to the streets in response to the actions of the Armenian government clearly shows that Kocharyan and Sargsyan’s social base has completely collapsed. The analyst stresses that they no longer have public support, political leverage, or legitimate social backing. Society is tired of the chaos, corruption, and war rhetoric that these two men dragged the country into for years. Therefore, no one listens to them anymore.
The greatest challenge facing Armenia’s current government is to uproot the ideology of revanchism and free society from past illusions. The steps taken by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s government-initiating direct dialogue with Azerbaijan, engaging in border delimitation, and restoring economic communications-can be seen as turning points in this regard. However, for this policy to remain sustainable, the influence of the Kocharyan-Sargsyan system must be neutralized.
‘The future of Armenia lies not in revanchism, but in peace and economic integration,’ stresses Armenian political analyst Isgandaryan. This requires not only political will but also a transformation in education, media, and societal values. Armenian society must understand that a new war will bring no ‘justice’-on the contrary, it will push the country deeper into social and economic crisis.
The peace process has now entered an irreversible phase-the key question is whether the revanchist forces in Armenia can accept this reality and finally bid farewell to their illusions.