President Ter-Petrosyan Forced to Resign Over Karabakh Compromise

YEREVAN - President Levon Ter-Petrosyan announced his resignation today after months of mounting pressure from key ministers and military commanders who opposed his proposals for a compromise solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, marking the fall of Armenia’s founding father and the triumph of hardline nationalism.

The resignation, presented as voluntary but clearly forced, came after Prime Minister Robert Kocharyan, Defense Minister Vazgen Sargsyan, and Interior Minister Serzh Sargsyan publicly opposed their president’s peace initiatives, creating an untenable situation where Ter-Petrosyan retained formal power but lost all authority.

“I am leaving because I cannot implement policies I believe necessary for Armenia’s future,” Ter-Petrosyan stated in his resignation address, maintaining intellectual dignity in political defeat. “History will judge whether I was wrong to seek peace or others were wrong to prevent it.”

Robert Kocharyan, the former Nagorno-Karabakh president who relocated to Yerevan as Prime Minister last year, will assume presidential duties pending new elections, completing a remarkable rise from provincial militant to national leader.

Palace Coup

While formally constitutional, Ter-Petrosyan’s removal resembled a velvet coup. The “power ministers” - defense, interior, and national security - united with Kocharyan to present ultimatum: abandon compromise proposals or resign.

“They gave him a choice between humiliation or dignity,” observed political insider. “He chose dignity, which meant leaving.”

The final confrontation came during a dramatic security council meeting where military commanders openly defied their commander-in-chief. When Ter-Petrosyan realized he couldn’t even count on presidential security, the end was clear.

Intellectual Versus Warriors

The conflict represented more than policy disagreement - it embodied clash between intellectual politician and war veterans, between complex reasoning and simple nationalism, between compromise and maximalism.

“Ter-Petrosyan spoke in paragraphs, they think in slogans,” noted former advisor. “He offered nuanced analysis, they demanded absolute victory. In post-war societies, warriors usually win.”

The president’s cerebral style, asset during independence movement, became liability in militarized political culture. His lengthy articles couldn’t compete with opponents’ emotional appeals to wartime sacrifice.

Kocharyan’s Triumph

For Robert Kocharyan, the resignation represents stunning victory. The Karabakh war hero who couldn’t legally become Armenian president (being born outside Armenia) now controls the office through constitutional succession.

“Kocharyan embodies everything Ter-Petrosyan isn’t - war veteran, maximalist, man of action over words,” analyzes political scientist. “He represents Karabakh’s veto over Armenia’s policies.”

The new leader promises no territorial concessions without status determination - essentially rejecting negotiations for foreseeable future. The frozen conflict will freeze harder under his leadership.

Military’s Political Victory

The resignation marks Armenian military’s emergence as political kingmaker. Defense Minister Vazgen Sargsyan, who built the victorious army, demonstrated he could also unmake presidents.

“The gun has defeated the pen,” observes analyst. “Future presidents will know military approval matters more than electoral mandate.”

This precedent troubles democrats who see civilian control over military as essential for stable statehood. Armenia joins post-Soviet states where armies make politics rather than just policy.

Opposition Celebration

Hardline opposition celebrates Ter-Petrosyan’s fall as preventing “national betrayal.” Demonstrators who demanded his resignation for months claim victory for “patriotic forces” over “defeatist leadership.”

“The people rejected capitulation,” proclaimed nationalist leader. “Armenia remains committed to our sacred lands regardless of pressure.”

The celebration ignores that “the people” never voted on Ter-Petrosyan’s proposals. His removal came through elite conspiracy rather than popular uprising, though crowds provided useful backdrop.

Economic Consequences

Financial markets react nervously to political instability and hardline victory. The dram weakens. Foreign investors pause. The economic opening Ter-Petrosyan sought seems increasingly distant.

“Politics trumped economics again,” laments business leader. “We’ll remain isolated, blockaded, dependent on remittances rather than developing normally.”

Kocharyan promises economic development without territorial concessions - magical thinking that ignores regional realities. Blockades don’t end without political settlements.

Diaspora Divisions

The Armenian diaspora splits over Ter-Petrosyan’s fall. Traditional organizations celebrate hardline victory while business-oriented groups worry about Armenia’s future under militaristic leadership.

“We wanted independent Armenia, not isolated garrison state,” states diaspora intellectual. “Ter-Petrosyan understood difference, his successors don’t.”

However, emotional diaspora nationalism generally supports keeping “liberated territories” regardless of cost to Armenia’s development. Distance allows romanticism.

Russian Satisfaction

Moscow barely conceals satisfaction at Ter-Petrosyan’s removal. His Western orientation and desire for negotiated settlement threatened Russian leverage. Kocharyan’s dependence on military support ensures continued Russian influence.

“Armenia just chose dependency over independence,” notes Russian analyst privately. “Kocharyan needs us more than Ter-Petrosyan did. Perfect outcome.”

Russian arms sales will continue. Military base remains secure. The manageable frozen conflict that serves Moscow’s interests faces no threat from inconvenient peace initiatives.

Historical Judgment

As Ter-Petrosyan clears his presidential office, historians already debate his legacy. The intellectual who led Armenia to independence couldn’t lead it to sustainable peace. Vision exceeded political capacity.

“He was right too early,” suggests sympathetic biographer. “Armenia wasn’t ready for hard compromises he proposed. Perhaps never will be.”

Critics argue he misread post-war psychology, underestimating how military victory would create political rigidity. Success in war doesn’t automatically translate to flexibility in peace.

Future Darkness

With Ter-Petrosyan’s departure, prospects for negotiated settlement dim considerably. Kocharyan represents forces that see any compromise as betrayal, any negotiation as weakness.

“We’re entering period of comfortable stagnation,” predicts analyst. “No war because we’re exhausted, no peace because we’re stubborn. Perfect recipe for decline.”

Armenia faces future of continued isolation, economic stagnation, and demographic decline. But it will keep its conquered territories, which for many makes all sacrifices worthwhile.

Morning After

As February 4 dawns, Armenia has new leadership but old problems. The borders remain closed. The conflict stays frozen. The territories aren’t recognized. The refugees can’t return.

“We’ve chosen pride over prosperity,” reflects former official. “History will judge if that’s wise or tragic.”

Ter-Petrosyan leaves office warning that time favors Azerbaijan’s oil wealth over Armenia’s military positions. His successors dismiss such concerns, confident that will trumps wealth.

Tonight, the intellectual president sleeps as private citizen while the warrior from Karabakh plans his presidency. Armenia has decided its future lies in maintaining past victories rather than risking present compromises.

The founding father has fallen. The hardliners have won. The conflict continues. Whether Armenia has won or lost remains for history to judge - history that Ter-Petrosyan warned may not be kind to those who mistake temporary advantage for permanent victory.