In theory, discussions of peace, especially in conflict-prone regions such as the South Caucasus, require clarity, accountability and a willingness to confront uncomfortable realities. In practice, however, such discussions often devolve into abstractions, where difficult questions are reframed, deferred or deflected altogether. This dynamic was on full display during the panel discussion, “Power Transition in the South Caucasus: Armenia Between Peace and Development,” hosted by the Fletcher Eurasia Club at Tufts University, featuring the founding editor-in-chief of EVN Report, Maria Titizian, and a political scientist and regular contributor to EVN Report. However, the issue was not that the panel lacked expertise; rather, it lacked substantive engagement with the central question implied by its own title: How will peace actually be achieved during the recent developments in the South Caucasus?
The missing context: Peace without consequence
Any serious discussion of Armenia’s future must grapple with three defining events from the past decade: the 2018 Velvet Revolution, the 2020 Artsakh War and the 2023 ethnic cleansing of the native people of Artsakh by Azerbaijan. These are not peripheral developments; they are the foundation upon which any conversation about peace and development must rest.
Yet during the panel, these events were treated largely as transitional markers rather than unresolved crises. The discussion quickly pivoted toward forward-looking frameworks, such as regional connectivity, nuclear energy and the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP), without adequately addressing the costs already incurred or the risks embedded in these proposals.
This omission is not merely an oversight. It reflects a broader tendency in certain academic and policy circles to frame peace as integration and normalization while minimizing questions of sovereignty, security and accountability.
The narrative of the Velvet Revolution
This tendency is particularly evident in Nerses Kopalyan’s published work. In his article “After the Velvet…”, published in EVN Report four years after the end of the Artsakh War and one year after the ethnic cleansing of Artsakh, he argues that the Velvet Revolution largely fulfilled its intended purpose and shifts the burden onto Armenian society for not fully realizing its promises.
By emphasizing the revolution’s intentions and procedural achievements, Kopalyan’s analysis sidesteps its measurable outcomes in national security. While no single political event can be held solely responsible for these developments, any evaluation that highlights the revolution’s successes while minimizing or omitting these consequences risks appearing incomplete at best and misleading at worst.
More strikingly, Kopalyan’s rhetorical question about whether Armenia has done what it “was supposed to do” after the Velvet Revolution implicitly shifts responsibility away from governing institutions and onto society at large. This framing blurs the line between analysis and advocacy, particularly when it avoids scrutinizing the policies and decisions of those in power.
The boundaries of “responsible journalism”
As moderator, Maria Titizian played a central role in shaping the panel’s direction. Her opening remarks briefly acknowledged Armenia’s recent crises before pivoting quickly to policy initiatives such as regional infrastructure and nuclear energy cooperation. This transition effectively relegated unresolved national trauma to the background rather than treating it as the central issue requiring examination.
During the Q&A session, when asked about concerns regarding free speech, institutional pressures and tensions with the Armenian Apostolic Church, Titizian’s response leaned heavily on personal experience, stating that she “always practiced responsible journalism” and had never “come under any kind of threat.” While this may be true on an individual level, it does not address the broader question posed. Anecdotal experience cannot substitute for systemic analysis, particularly in a media environment where concerns about pluralism, political alignment and funding transparency have been publicly debated.
As the founding editor-in-chief of EVN Report, Titizian has consistently positioned the publication as a platform for reform-oriented, forward-looking perspectives. However, this editorial stance often aligns with the current Armenian government’s narratives, particularly in its emphasis on normalization, regional integration and a reduced reliance on traditional security paradigms.
Whether one agrees with that orientation or not, the absence of critical distance during a panel explicitly addressing peace raises legitimate questions about journalistic framing versus political positioning.
Deflection in practice
The most revealing moment of the panel came during the audience Q&A. When the panelists were asked about free speech concerns, government tensions with the Armenian Apostolic Church and reports of controversial infrastructure agreements, the responses were notably indirect.
Kopalyan’s characterization of tensions with the Armenian Apostolic Church as primarily an issue of leadership alignment, and even as a potential national security concern linked to external influence, reframed the issue away from state conduct and toward institutional legitimacy of critics.
Similarly, a question regarding reports of a potential long-term agreement involving the Turkish company Limak on the TRIPP project was met not with clarification but with dismissal. While it is true that not all reports materialize into policy, the lack of engagement with the concern itself, particularly given Armenia’s geopolitical sensitivities, reinforced the perception of avoidance.
This pattern, acknowledging questions only to redirect or dilute them, illustrates the core issue: Deflection has replaced discussion.
Peace requires more than narrative control
What emerged from this panel was not a serious exploration of peace but a demonstration of how peace can be reframed into a narrative that avoids accountability. When structural criticisms are reduced to anecdotal responses, national security concerns are reframed as misunderstandings and legitimate questions are dismissed rather than addressed, the result is not clarity but further obscurity.
Armenia’s current situation demands more than that. Peace cannot be built on selective analysis or forward-looking rhetoric that overlooks recent history. It requires confronting failures, acknowledging risks and engaging openly with dissenting perspectives. Without that foundation, discussions of peace and development risk becoming precisely what this panel exemplified: a controlled conversation where skewed reflection replaces responsibility, deflection substitutes for substance and prevarication fills the gaps.
The post Reflection, deflection and prevarication appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.