Arman Babajanyan, the chairman of the “For the Republic” party, wrote on his “Facebook” page:

“Armenia is facing a new phase of external pressure, the primary goal of which is not the normalization of relations, but the dismantling of its institutional resistance. No matter how aggressive and humiliating the texts voiced yesterday are, they are a real danger only in the case when they are not followed by conscious, systematic, consistent work on the part of Armenia.

At this stage, Armenia’s response should be a comprehensive and multifaceted state counteraction based on simultaneous activation on the legal, diplomatic, security, and political fronts.

Armenia should formulate its stance without hesitation: the corridor logic, regardless of its name, threatens the foundations of the state and the Constitution, violates territorial integrity, and contradicts the principles of international law.

A special advisory opinion of the Constitutional Court should be initiated on the unconstitutionality of the corridor proposals. This will not only improve Armenia’s position on international platforms but will also set political and legal red lines within the country that can no longer be bypassed.
Armenia should publish legal and political analyses of documents and demands on all international platforms – the EU, the Council of Europe, the UN, and the OSCE – justifying that the ideas voiced yesterday do not align with the logic of peace, but rather pose a threat to international peace.

This is necessary not to complain, but to create a precedent. Armenia should change the legal standards for discussing the issue, moving it from the perception of a “diplomatic process” to the field of “imposition of unilateral conditions accompanied by the threat of force”. This is a necessary prerequisite so that, in the event of upcoming developments, international law is not a neutral observer, but part of Armenia’s diplomatic and legal toolkit.

The key direction of counteraction should be consistent partnership and alliance work with the US, the EU, France, Greece, India, and other countries. Armenia should immediately develop a coordinated multi-layered strategy with these countries.

Diplomatic work should not be limited to the framework of the Foreign Ministry. It should be transformed into a comprehensive domestic effort, involving the Diaspora, expert networks, the media, and a permanent dialogue at the parliamentary level.

Every statement by Baku should have its response not only in Yerevan, but also in Paris, Washington, Brussels, Berlin, Delhi, and elsewhere.
A new agenda for European and American security cooperation should be formed immediately. Armenia’s security cannot be protected by border observation missions alone. Armenia should propose a security assistance program with a long-term mandate, including the expansion of technological border control, joint air surveillance projects, and targeted defense sector reconstruction with the involvement of Western experts.

Concrete, practical programs are needed that will develop Armenia’s strategic potential. This should not be temporary, but institutional support based on a formulated risk analysis.

The Armenia-US strategic partnership should be transformed not only into investment opportunities in political and economic terms, but also into a platform for resolving issues ranging from security sector restructuring to energy self-sufficiency.

The same should happen with France, Greece, and India. Armenia should formulate its expectations in an open text, clearly presenting what it is ready to invest in the stability of the region. Until Armenia clearly defines its expectations and obligations, no international support can be long-term and reliable.

Armenia must strengthen its internal political, security, and legal environment.

Diplomacy cannot function without a solid state base. That base is a strong state system with internal cohesion, a society that trusts its institutions, and structures based on laws.

A genuine counteraction to the mechanisms of hybrid influence is necessary: cleansing the political circles, media, and spiritual sphere of networks exploited by external management. If these platforms become pillars of real statehood, Armenia will withstand not only Aliyev’s threats, but also the deepening barrage of regional pressures.

And finally, Armenia must speak with a dignified, sober, and decisive voice. Not as a victim, not as a complaining state, but as a responsible, sovereign actor, standing on its values and committed to its future.

Peace is not a gift. It is built with meticulous precision, realism, and determination. Armenia’s role should not be that of a victim of pressure, but of an agenda-setting party. And it is from that position, with a coordinated, sensible, and strong strategy, that Armenia can neutralize the threat that sounded from Shushi, Armenia, yesterday, not as a word, but as a warning.”