The message by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of Armenia’s Declaration of Independence marks a turning point in the country’s political narrative. By stating that the Karabakh Movement should not be continued, the Prime Minister proposes a strategic shift: prioritizing peace, stability, and the consolidation of the Armenian state over the historical aspirations that have shaped Armenia’s political life—and that of its diaspora—for decades.

This vision, though pragmatic, opens a profound and necessary debate: Can national sovereignty and sustainable development be guaranteed without actively defending the historical rights of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh? For some in society, Pashinyan’s stance may be interpreted as a premature renunciation of collective memory and of the struggles that paved the way to independence. For others, however, it represents a realistic commitment to the survival of the Armenian state—one capable of enduring in peace within its internationally recognized borders.

The central criticism lies in the fact that prioritizing peace without a clear security strategy—particularly in the absence of guarantees for displaced Armenians or those in border regions—could leave vulnerable populations unprotected. Moreover, such a perception of weakness or abandonment may fuel internal divisions and weaken the nation’s social fabric.

Nevertheless, the message also presents an opportunity: it invites a rethinking of patriotism from a contemporary perspective—not only as resistance or armed struggle, but as institutional development, sustainable growth, and active diplomacy. A patriotism that does not deny historical memory, but integrates it into a forward-looking national project.

The immediate challenge for Pashinyan and his government is to transform this vision into concrete policies. Peace must not remain a symbolic declaration, but must become a sustained process—backed by a robust defense policy, credible international agreements, and effective security guarantees for affected Armenian communities. Equally important is the preservation of the memory of Karabakh and of those who gave their lives for that cause, incorporating it into the national discourse without falling into revisionism or resentment.

The idea of a “Real Armenia” could become a model of modern patriotism—provided it succeeds in balancing three fundamental pillars: effective diplomacy, strong national defense, and social cohesion. Otherwise, it risks being perceived as a discourse of resignation in the face of external geopolitical pressures.

In conclusion, Pashinyan’s message calls for an essential debate: How can peace be achieved without sacrificing historical justice or compromising the security of the Armenian people? True stability will only be lasting if it is built upon firm foundations of sovereignty, dignity, and collective memory—not upon concessions that endanger Armenia’s future integrity. The responsibility of both leadership and civil society is to transform this turning point into an opportunity to redefine patriotism in a way that reconciles memory and modernity, identity and development, justice and sovereignty.