A few days ago, British Foreign Minister David Lammy, in his publication entitled "The United Kingdom and the United States united for Ukraine," mentioned that "Azerbaijan was able to liberate the territory it lost in the early 1990s." This phrase provoked a very violent reaction in Armenia, the Armenian people and in the country of the Armenophiles. A terrible noise arose, which continues to this day. The reason for the discontent is Lammy's use of the "wrong" definition. He called Azerbaijan's actions the liberation of territories, which means that they were occupied. The British minister simply stated a fact recognized by the whole world, including four UN Security Council resolutions. Azerbaijani lands were occupied in the early 90s, and in 2020, respectively, they were liberated. What's wrong?

In the stream of criticism and hysteria around "incorrect" definitions, an article by journalist Grigor Atanesyan, which appeared on the British website UnHerd, stands out. The journalist, who publishes in Forbes, BBC and other similar publications, tried to approach the modern history of Armenia from an unexpected angle. Unfortunately, the publicist himself is not free from the traditional cliches of Armenian propaganda, but we will ignore all this in this case. That's not the point.

Atanesyan's publication is notable for the fact that he openly wrote about the occupation of Azerbaijani territories and called it a violation of international law. True, this was said only about seven districts around the former NKAO, but still, progress is evident.

The irredentist ideology, which was legalized in the nineties, became the collapse of Armenia, the author believes, quoting historian Ronald Grigor Suny, who wrote: "The biggest mistake of the Armenians was to succumb to the pernicious arrogance, thinking that they could create a "Great Armenia" on the territory liberated from the people who lived there."

It's not just that there have never been any moral justifications for the occupation of seven districts, the journalist writes. There was no chance that Armenia would be allowed to evade responsibility. "Despite the diplomatic efforts of various administrations, the Armenian side has not managed to get its position approved by the international community," historian and diplomat Zhirayr Libaridyan told Atanesyan in 2020.

The author tells about the mistakes and stupidities committed by the rulers of Armenia and how they brought it to this day, about hopes for Russia and the West, which in both cases did not materialize, about the hopeless lag behind Azerbaijan. Etc.  

"Meanwhile, nationalist dogmas still dominate the conversation. For many, the role that occupation and erroneous policies have played in Armenia's problems is still taboo. Instead, the government blames Russia for everything, hoping to find a sympathetic audience in the West," Atanesyan writes. Armenians blame Russia, Biden, the European Union, Israel, "but very few mention Armenia's arrogance." The author of the article clearly shows the perniciousness of the Armenian side's maximalist position and points out that "for small nations seduced by the ghosts of a glorious past, this should sound like a warning."

All right. Excessive self-confidence and confidence in patrons did not allow Armenia to soberly assess the situation and see where it leads. We all remember talking about a "new war - new territories." This was said not out of stupid bravado, but based on specific circumstances. The calculations did not come true, because Azerbaijan had its own calculations, which were much more realistic. But the very fact that they were talking about "new territories" in Armenia is quite indicative. He convinced the Azerbaijani side that it was time for diplomacy to take a back seat.

With its holding today, Armenia shows that it has not drawn any conclusions from the last 35 years of its history. And this is despite the fact that Azerbaijan, after the 2020 war, offered the defeated enemy to make peace. Let's be honest, for what Armenia did to Azerbaijani lands during the occupation, for the brutal ethnic cleansing that deprived about a million Azerbaijanis, for genocide and total vandalism, Armenia deserved the worst fate, not the hands of the world. Azerbaijan did this in the interests of the region and in the hope that this step will help its neighbors draw the right conclusions from everything that happened to them. Not for their own sake, but for the stability and security of the region. Throughout the years of its independence, Armenia has been the main threat to the stability and security of the South Caucasus and continues to be so today. Being a country with formal sovereignty, it creates serious risks with its thoughtless steps.

Yes, Armenia has drawn conclusions, but not those that would help it get back on its feet. Instead of repentance and repentance, we see the escalation of a revanchist line, militarization, the organization of diplomatic attacks and slanderous campaigns against Baku. Endless slanders, petitions, complaints to international authorities, misinformation of the world community. The Armenians unwisely took up the old ways, although the previous methods not only did not work, but failed completely.

What result does the Armenians expect today? According to that. As Yerevan acts, it can be concluded that the Armenian side itself does not know the answer to this question. And as always, he does not look to the future. During the years of occupation, Armenia, as journalist Atanesyan wrote, did not have a single chance to escape responsibility. She has no chance today either. In the new realities, when Azerbaijan has restored its sovereignty to the last millimeter, Armenia can not be afraid of war. But she faces no less serous challenges, generated by her thoughtless stubbornness and downright touching faith in the slogan "abroad will help us."