The concept of peace can be approached either through relative measures or through concrete actions. Anyone guided by pragmatic thinking knows that peace is built not with words, but with deeds. History provides numerous examples of nations that struggled through prolonged conflicts to ultimately achieve peace. France and Germany, France and England, the Balkan countries, regions long defined by recurring wars, eventually overcame deep-seated enmity. Europe, once labelled the “cradle of wars” by leading U.S. figures, has now become synonymous with peace.
Today, a similar opportunity for lasting peace has emerged in our region. The long-standing Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict is making significant strides toward resolution. Yet, progress requires not only time but also considerable political will.
Unfortunately, certain realities remind us that time alone is not enough. Separatism and anti-Azerbaijani sentiment persist in Armenia. The Yerevan-based Armenian terrorist organisation “Yerkrapah” continues to organise summer camps for young people, instilling hatred against Azerbaijanis. At these events, youths march under the flags of the separatist regime, demonstrating that Armenia’s commitment to peace with Azerbaijan remains largely rhetorical. Compounding this concern, Armenian Deputy Minister of Defense Hrachya Sargsyan has participated in these gatherings, delivering speeches under the separatists’ banners.
A brief overview of this organization follows:
The “Yerkrapah” organization, established in 1993 by former Armenian Defense Minister Vazgen Sargsyan, unites volunteer soldiers from the First Garabagh War. Initially comprising 6,000 fighters, its membership later grew to 30,000, making it a powerful political and military force in Armenia. British analyst Thomas de Waal noted that after 1994, “Yerkrapah” became the country’s most influential organization.
The group has acted as a reserve unit for the Armenian army, sending volunteers to the front during the 2016 “April battles” and the Second Garabagh War. Under Sargsyan, “Yerkrapah” even formed a parliamentary faction, becoming the largest in 1998 before merging with the Republican Party of Armenia.
After Sargsyan’s death, leadership passed to Manvel Grigoryan, notorious for war crimes against Azerbaijanis, including looting, torture, hostage-taking, and murder. Despite his cruelty, the organization’s political influence declined by 2001.
In 2008, senior military officials, led by Chief of General Staff Seyran Ohanyan, left “Yerkrapah” in protest of its political involvement, particularly after its deputy supported former President Levon Ter-Petrosyan during post-election protests. Grigoryan, who also served as deputy defense minister, was later arrested in 2018 on charges of illegal arms possession and embezzlement but released on bail.
After Grigoryan’s death, Sasun Mikaelyan became head of “Yerkrapah,” emphasizing that the organization will no longer act as a political wing of the ruling party.
The past week marked an important moment in the peace agreement agenda. Following the trilateral meeting in Washington, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan addressed the nation, declaring his commitment to peace with Azerbaijan. He stated that Armenia holds no territorial claims against Azerbaijan and expressed strong support for amending the constitution, which has long been viewed as the main obstacle to peace. It was a realistic and pragmatic stance—and in fact, the first such statement made by an Armenian head of state since independence. But the real question is: what does this mean in practice?
On the ground, little has changed. It would be unrealistic to expect progress in such a short span, as genuine transformation requires deep reforms. Yet, resistance is evident. The Armenian diaspora, the Church, and nationalist circles argue that these developments undermine the so-called Armenian cause. Together, they form an influential network opposing peace, not only defending territorial claims but also clinging to a worldview built on grievance, martyrdom, and the myth of heroic victimhood. While successive governments in Yerevan have come and gone, the Church has remained a constant power center, functioning at times as a “deep state.”
Skepticism also exists among officials and journalists within Armenia. Some, still shaped by an occupation mentality, portray peace as nothing more than Azerbaijan’s attempt to occupy Armenia under the guise of the Zangazur Corridor. What is striking is that even when this project is reframed by U.S. officials or in political discussions, these voices remain dismissive. They fail to recognize that the corridor not only connects Azerbaijan with Nakhchivan but also offers Armenia a way out of its economic isolation. In reality, it is a corridor of prosperity.
History shows how such projects can lay the groundwork for lasting peace. The leading European states that once waged devastating wars against each other achieved reconciliation through economic integration. It was only in the 1950s, through joint initiatives and European cooperation, that they transformed centuries of conflict into stability. Ironically, the very roots of nationalism, ethnic chauvinism, and revanchism trace back to Europe, yet it was also in Europe where these forces were ultimately tamed through integration.
Without straying too far from the core issue, the fact remains: Armenia will face serious consequences by allowing such a group to operate freely on its territory. Interestingly, the chairman of the “Yerkrapah” military organization, Sasun Mikayelyan, once pledged unwavering loyalty to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, regardless of political circumstances. He made this statement at an event dedicated to Vazgen Sargsyan’s birthday in March 2020, an event attended by Pashinyan himself. But what happens if tensions arise in the relationship between Yerkrapah and the prime minister, or between Pashinyan and Armenian society at large?
The current developments are a clear warning. Yerkrapah is notorious for its nationalist ideology and repeated provocations along the Azerbaijan-Armenia border. On February 12, 2024, the group staged a military provocation aimed at escalating tensions along the conditional state border.
What makes this organization especially dangerous is its lack of accountability. Yerkrapah does not answer to Armenia’s army command or government. Instead, it takes orders from figures connected to Russian military intelligence networks and the “Garabbagh clan.” Its ties to Russian intelligence date back to the First Karabakh War. Unless Pashinyan decisively dismantles this terrorist structure, border provocations will persist—and Armenia itself will pay the price.
It is worth recalling Article VIII of the Peace Agreement:
“The parties condemn and will combat all manifestations of intolerance, racial hatred and discrimination, separatism, violent extremism and terrorism within their jurisdictions, and will also ensure the fulfillment of applicable international obligations.”
This raises a direct question for Brussels as well: why the silence? Instead of constantly watching Azerbaijan through a magnifying glass, the EU should turn that lens inward. The real danger is festering not in Azerbaijan, but within Armenia itself. Although it is generally not permitted, it should be clear that this mission will be insignificant once fire is opened. Azerbaijan does not seek war, but it remains fully prepared to defend its sovereignty if threatened. It has never allowed separatist or chauvinist forces to take root on its territory, and it never will. Armenia now stands before a critical choice: to pursue peace through pragmatic steps, or to once again drag the region into bloodshed under the influence of destructive forces.
