Without practical and reliable security guarantees Armenia`s  sovereignty remains vulnerable - expert 

ArmInfo. The reality is that without practical and reliable security guarantees, Armenia's sovereignty remains vulnerable. Political scientist Suren Surenyants notes this on his YouTube channel, responding to an article by public figure and diplomat Zhirayr Liparityan, who expressed his opinion on  the Washington agreements.

"With all due respect to the scientific and diplomatic merits of  Zhirayr Liparityan, I still consider it necessary to respond to his  article published today in "Aravot". He presents the Washington  documents in an overly optimistic light. As rude as it may sound, it  seems that the author of the article is not an outstanding scientist,  but a government lobbyist. Now to the point. Liparityan writes:  "Azerbaijan has undertaken an obligation to recognize the principle  of territorial integrity of Armenia, based on the Alma- Ata  Declaration of 1991; a goal that Yerevan has long been striving for." 

However, experience shows that Azerbaijan has repeatedly violated the  provisions of the same declaration, invading Armenian territory,  seizing heights and blackmailing our country by force. If these  obligations were violated without consequences in the past, how can  we refer to the same document today as a reliable guarantee?" asks  Surenyants.

He also touched on the issue of constitutional amendments, which  Liparityan points to as a possible genuine concern on the part of  Baku. "But this is not "genuine concern", but an instrument of open  pressure, with the help of which Baku is trying to make Armenia's  domestic legislation serve its interests.  The Constitution of  Armenia cannot be subject to the whims of Azerbaijan. Liparityan  claims that these documents allow Armenians to "breathe a little more  freely". But what kind of "peace" is this if the documents bypass the  issues of the release of prisoners, delimitation/demarcation, the  protection of Armenian cultural heritage and real security  mechanisms. Ignoring these issues does not bring peace, but, on the  contrary, aggravates the uncertainty. In the section dedicated to the  opposition, Liparityan writes that it acts "out of the wrong motives"  (of course, I also have doubts about the statements of some  oppositionists, but Liparityan's overall assessment is harsh and  unfair). It is Azerbaijan's aggressive rhetoric and constantly put  forward new demands that form the opposition's fears. Ignoring them  is not only political injustice, but also a weakening of Armenia's  position in the issue of self-defense. Finally, Liparitian admits:  "Even under the most favorable circumstances, US guarantees remain  unstable." Even if the author claims that US guarantees are unstable,  what is the real basis for Armenia's security? If Washington is not  ready to ensure its obligations by force or political leverage, and  Russia, in the author's opinion, has already proven its  unreliability, then who and how will ensure our territorial  integrity? Note that Liparitian, following many Armenian analysts,  seems to compare the imperfect Russian security system with some  ideal state, and not with the complete absence of this imperfect  system. However, it is precisely this incorrect comparison that  creates the illusion in public discourse that Russia is simply  "failing," while the reality is that nothing will appear in its  place. And when there is nothing, the danger is greater than any  imperfection. Thus, Liparitian's article is built on overly  optimistic assumptions.  Meanwhile, the reality is that without  practical and reliable security guarantees, Armenia's sovereignty  remains vulnerable," says Suren Surenyants.