By Wally Sarkeesian
November 9 is set to become a day of mourning in Armenian history — not only for the loss of territory but for the collapse of political accountability at the highest level of the state. The events surrounding the November 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh, and the subsequent agreements signed by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, represent a watershed moment in the erosion of Armenian sovereignty and national responsibility. On that day, decisions that would determine the future of Artsakh were made in secrecy, without consultation with Parliament, the foreign ministry, or the Armenian people.
The Historical Context
Nagorno-Karabakh, known to Armenians as Artsakh, has been an inseparable part of Armenian history for centuries. It has been a focal point of cultural, religious, and demographic identity. In the late 20th century, as the Soviet Union dissolved, tensions over Artsakh escalated into full-scale war. For decades, Armenian forces successfully defended the region, establishing a fragile but functioning state apparatus under constant threat.
By 2020, however, the geopolitical landscape had shifted. Azerbaijan, with military support and strategic backing from Turkey, launched a renewed offensive aimed at reclaiming control over Nagorno-Karabakh. While the conflict was undoubtedly challenging on the battlefield, the ultimate outcome was determined less by military might than by political collapse.
Capitulation Behind Closed Doors
According to multiple reports and firsthand accounts from diaspora analysts, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan personally negotiated with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in November 2020. In these negotiations, Pashinyan refused to consult the Armenian Parliament or his own Foreign Minister. Entire swaths of Artsakh — including areas never occupied by Azerbaijani forces — were effectively handed over without resistance.
This departure from historical norms of wartime negotiation shocked both military experts and legal scholars. Traditionally, post-conflict settlements follow the realities on the ground: territories under control by the defending army form the basis for negotiation. In Pashinyan’s case, such principles were disregarded. The surrender of Artsakh was not contingent upon military outcomes but dictated entirely by the unilateral decisions of one leader.
Breaking Institutional Process
The implications of bypassing parliamentary and ministerial consultation are severe. As constitutional scholar Dr. Anahit Sargsyan notes, “Armenia’s system of governance relies on institutional checks to prevent arbitrary decisions with existential consequences. By ignoring these mechanisms, Pashinyan undermined both the rule of law and the nation’s security framework.”
Military strategist Colonel Vahan Petrosian, writing in a diaspora military review, observed: “Even if the Armenian army had been on the verge of losing certain positions, the proper process would have involved staggered withdrawal and negotiated armistice. Instead, a full surrender was executed in secrecy, eroding morale and trust in leadership.”
A Departure from the Laws of War
The November 2020 agreement stands out not merely for what was lost but for how it was lost. In every armed conflict, negotiations for peace or ceasefire usually correlate with control over territory. Pashinyan’s approach discarded that principle entirely. Areas that remained under Armenian defense were handed over; communities and cultural landmarks were abandoned without discussion. As historian Dr. Levon Harutyunyan notes, “What occurred was a political surrender masquerading as a diplomatic settlement. Armenia lost not just land, but its credibility as a sovereign actor.”
The Symbolism of November 9
September 9, therefore, is more than a calendar date; it is a symbol of systemic failure. It represents the day when political accountability was ignored, legal processes were bypassed, and the Armenian people were excluded from decisions determining their survival. The loss of Artsakh, in this framing, was not only military — it was a betrayal of trust.
Diaspora analyst Mariam Avetisyan writes: “This day will resonate across generations. It is a warning that the absence of consultation, oversight, and accountability can cost a nation its heartland, its culture, and its very identity.”
Cultural and Human Consequences
Beyond the political ramifications, the consequences for Armenian society and heritage are profound. Entire communities have been displaced. Religious sites, libraries, and historical landmarks face destruction or repurposing under Azerbaijani control. The forced evacuation of Armenian civilians from Artsakh represents not only a demographic shift but the erasure of centuries of history.
Legal analyst Hovhannes Minasyan emphasizes: “The international community recognizes the rights of populations under occupation and post-conflict transitions. However, Armenia’s failure to assert these rights during negotiations — and Pashinyan’s unilateral signing — has weakened any claim to restitution or future protection.”
Diaspora Response and Historical Memory
The Armenian diaspora has reacted with outrage and despair. Intellectuals, policymakers, and activists emphasize that November 9 must be embedded into the collective memory, not as a day of resignation but as a call for accountability and vigilance. Professor Aram Bedrosian, a diaspora historian, writes: “Memory is a form of resistance. Armenian society must not forget that Artsakh’s loss was political, not inevitable.”
The lessons are clear:
- Concentration of power without oversight can endanger national survival.
- Critical decisions on territorial integrity must include parliamentary, ministerial, and public consultation.
- Leadership devoid of accountability risks surrendering a nation’s future.
Strategic Implications for Armenia
The political surrender of Artsakh also carries long-term strategic consequences. Russia’s mediation, while portrayed as stabilizing, effectively limited Armenia’s autonomy in negotiating borders, military presence, and civilian protections. Azerbaijan, emboldened by international acquiescence, now occupies a stronger geopolitical position. Analysts warn that future Armenian leaders may struggle to reclaim influence unless internal governance and accountability are restored.
Military analyst Colonel Petrosian notes: “Even a well-equipped army cannot compensate for political vulnerability. Armenia must rebuild institutional resilience before considering any future territorial negotiation.”
Lessons for Governance
September 9, therefore, should not only be remembered as a day of loss but as a blueprint for reform. Armenian governance requires:
- Strict adherence to constitutional procedures in matters of war and peace.
- Transparent consultation with legislative and ministerial bodies before signing treaties.
- Public communication to ensure national buy-in for existential decisions.
Failure to institutionalize these lessons risks repeating history — a risk Armenians cannot afford.
Conclusion: Accountability, Memory, and the Future
The loss of Artsakh is both a territorial and moral catastrophe. It is a stark reminder that sovereignty is fragile when leadership concentrates decision-making power and bypasses institutional safeguards. While military defeat was a factor, the decisive loss came from political capitulation — a surrender negotiated in secrecy by Nikol Pashinyan personally, without consultation, without debate, and without consent.
November 9 must remain engraved in Armenian consciousness: not as a symbol of hopelessness, but as a call to action. Political accountability, institutional resilience, and historical memory are the only paths to prevent future tragedies. The Armenian nation must ensure that leadership operates in service of the people — not in isolation, not in secrecy, and never again at the expense of its homeland.
