Ramil Safarov, Azerbaijan’s symbol of “peace”

Resolving political conflicts requires more than signing agreements; it demands a deep, often painful transformation of both sides’ internal environments. Genuine, lasting peace is not tested at border checkpoints but in history textbooks, public statements, and most importantly, in personnel policy. When Armenia and Azerbaijan claim to be moving toward peace, this rhetoric must inevitably be reflected in real processes “on the ground.” However, analysis of the latest steps taken by Yerevan and Baku demonstrates a striking, even frightening contrast: while in Armenia we observe a process resembling creeping and unilateral capitulation, in Azerbaijan there is not even a thought of such softening, with preference given instead to a cult of militarism and encouragement of aggression.

The actions of Nikol Pashinyan’s government are undoubtedly aimed at dismantling the previous ideological system. Public gestures, such as the Speaker of Parliament Alen Simonyan wishing good luck to the Azerbaijani representative at Junior Eurovision, demonstrate a “new normal” in which official Yerevan is ready to show its “openness to dialogue.” These processes are most sharply manifested in the education system. The appointment of Lilit Mkrtchyan as acting rector of the Armenian State Pedagogical University is a vivid example. Mkrtchyan, who previously participated in a joint project with Turkish historians where, as reported, the Armenian Highlands were referred to as “Eastern Anatolia,” now heads a key institution for training future teachers.

Against Armenia’s unprecedented softening of rhetoric, Azerbaijan’s actions not only contrast but directly contradict it, sending a clear signal of preserving and strengthening militarist attitudes. A key example is the Baku regime’s attitude toward war criminal Ramil Safarov. Recall that in 2004 Safarov, then an officer, murdered the sleeping Armenian officer Gurgen Margaryan with an axe. After extradition from Hungary in 2012, Safarov was pardoned and celebrated as a national hero. Recently, the trend of glorifying Safarov has taken a new turn: he was promoted to colonel, and a special position was created for his wife as director of the “Study in Azerbaijan” project. This gesture is highly symbolic. By appointing a member of Safarov’s family to a post connected with education and youth, Baku demonstrates that its model of a “national hero” is someone who committed murder motivated by ethnic hatred. This is not simply rewarding a soldier; it is rewarding ethnically motivated aggression, the very opposite of peaceful coexistence.

The encouragement of Safarov and his family is a clear signal of Baku’s militarist plans. This signal is confirmed by objective factors: the continued increase in Azerbaijan’s military budget. When a country prepares for peace, its expenditures should be redistributed toward the social sector. Yet in the 2024 budget, Azerbaijan’s spending on defense and national security was increased by 6% compared to 2023, reaching $3.777 billion. Alongside the glorification of an aggressor, the buildup of military spending shows that war remains central to Baku’s strategic planning.

Armenia’s unilateral steps to revise its historical and ideological course, set against Azerbaijan’s militarization and glorification of hatred, create a dangerous imbalance. While Yerevan tries to build a “one-sided peace” at the cost of internal stability and national narratives, Baku, by rewarding Ramil Safarov, essentially lays the foundation for future aggression.

This contrast clearly shows that the peace process is in deep deadlock: for one side it means the heaviest concessions, while for the other it is merely a tactical pause and continued preparation for a forceful solution.

Think about it…