RA premier`s address on August 8 shameful and dangerous - expert 

ArmInfo.  Political observer Hakob Badalyan called Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's address on August 8, 2025, the day the joint "Declaration of Peace" between Armenia and Azerbaijan was signed in Washington, D.C., shameful and dangerous, and revealed its true message.

On his Telegram page, he began with the final part, where the  Armenian prime minister allegedly stated that "many are acting  according to the logic of destroying the world," and then called for  an end to discourses about the "right of return." Badalyan believes  that in a situation where Azerbaijan is clearly acting against peace,  with its demands and statements against Armenia, Pashinyan somehow  "finds" those acting against peace in Armenia and sees in Armenia  what supposedly needs to be done to make peace irreversible. "When  Azerbaijan clearly and at the highest level speaks, supports, and  promotes the so-called fictitious and legally groundless 'Western  Azerbaijan program,' declaring that full-fledged peace cannot exist  until it is implemented, Pashinyan 'in advance' turns Armenia into a  risk factor for peace, denying completely objective rights  substantiated by international law. This is something that is  difficult to describe as anything other than shameful," the political  scientist believes.

He also called the assertion that "in the parliamentary elections on  June 7, Armenian citizens not only voted for peace but also took  responsibility for it politically dangerous, although this does not  mean that we have achieved the final result on the path to  implementing the peace narrative." According to the expert, this  statement is tantamount to a mine under Armenian statehood, as none  of the leading opposition forces participating in Armenia's  parliamentary elections has questioned peace or the need to establish  relations with Azerbaijan. "Only the logic of peace proposed by the  Civil Contract party or Pashinyan-its quality, reliability,  trustworthiness, and predictability-has been called into question. It  is generally dangerous when the ruling power, based on its own  political needs, and perhaps under the influence of certain "verbal"  conditions from Azerbaijan, attempts to "institutionalize" the  "dilemma" of peace and war in Armenia, thereby characterizing the  electoral process," the political observer explained.

Reacting to Pashinyan's statement that "August 8 divides the history  of the Republic of Armenia into 'before' and 'after,'" he explained  that in reality, it is Armenia's territory that is being "divided,"  having been leased to another state for nearly a century while  formally preserving Armenia's territorial integrity and sovereignty.  "And when Pashinyan declares that we have now broken the deadlock and  that 'the steering wheel of our history is again in our hands,' this  is a complete distortion of the real state of affairs, since 'peace'  has been established only because the right to manage the road  passing through Armenia's territory has been taken from Armenia's  hands and transferred to others," the expert believes.

According to Badalyan, the "dilemma" of peace and war, posed by  Armenia's ruling party, is completely false, artificial, and  manipulative. And it is precisely this issue, in his words-the agenda  of the real world, as opposed to the manipulative agenda of the "real  Armenia"-that is currently one of the most important public and state  issues for Armenia, a strategic issue that a modern government must  address. The opposition must avoid emotional traps and succumb to the  ruling party's clever propaganda tactics. "This work must be carried  out both domestically and internationally. It's difficult work, but  necessary and important," the political scientist asserts.

Badalyan also explained why Pashinyan still mentions August 8th. The  political observer believes that such a message testifies to  Pashinyan's difficult external situation and his lack of internal  support, despite the Armenian prime minister's claims of public  support in the parliamentary elections. "He is right in one respect:  Armenian society has assumed responsibility for peace. But it assumed  responsibility for peace by not giving Pashinyan 50 percent or more  of the vote. This is precisely how Armenian society assumed  responsibility for peace, and I think Pashinyan understands the full  significance of this circumstance.  Armenian society assumed  responsibility for peace because assuming responsibility for peace  means, at a minimum, depriving the ruling power in Armenia of its  so-called constitutional majority, as well as gradually shaping a new  political reality-with a new balance of power and a new logic for the  political opposition," Badalyan explained.

Here, he said, Pashinyan has virtually no room for action, as he  lacks the ability or resources to do anything other than what he  expresses in his August 8 address. "The room for action lies  exclusively with the opposition forces-within the sphere of activity  of the leading opposition, or, more specifically, in continuing the  changes that are already evident and beginning to show the first  signs of change.  Accordingly, the task is not to condemn Pashinyan  and ask why he delivered this particular address. The task is to  focus on what needs to be done and direct all efforts toward that,"  the expert concluded.