Munich Conference Casts Optimistic Light on Azerbaijani-Armenian Peace Process

Jamestown Foundation
March 2 2023
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on the South Caucasus panel in Munich (Source: Eurasianet)

On February 19, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan attended the discussion panel regarding the South Caucasus at the Munich Security Conference. Afterward, they held a face-to-face meeting on the sidelines of the conference with the mediation of United States Secretary of State Anthony Blinken (Asbarez, February 18). Ultimately, the parties focused on the points at the top of their respective agendas, and as a result, they failed to reach a significant agreement on many key issues, including the status of the Lachin road and future development of the Zangezur Corridor. Aliyev revealed in a later interview that he had proposed to the Armenian side the establishment of bilateral checkpoints at both ends of the Zangezur Corridor and along the Lachin road (Eurasianet, February 22). Since the end of the Second Karabakh War in 2020, Azerbaijan has long sought the establishment of this desired corridor through Armenia’s Syunik province to connect the country with its Nakhchivan exclave, albeit unsuccessfully. Thus, debates over the Zangezur project, among other issues, have led to a stalemate in peace negotiations, with regional actors, such as Iran, strictly standing against the project and supporting Armenia in its opposition (JAM-news, February 18).

The proposal to establish bilateral checkpoints in the border areas between Armenia and Azerbaijan is not a new phenomenon. Earlier, in October 2022, Yerevan expressed its willingness to set up additional border checkpoints with Baku, though in different locations (News.am, October 27, 2022). Of Azerbaijan’s greater concern, shortly after the Munich meeting, Armenia officially rejected the proposal of checkpoints along the Lachin Corridor, referring to the point in the Russian-brokered trilateral agreement signed on November 10, 2020, of “unimpeded movement via the corridor” (Apa.az, February 23).

Consequently, the continuing war of words between Baku and Yerevan coupled with the deadly clashes throughout 2022 have swiftly disillusioned both domestic audiences regarding the prospects for a comprehensive peace agreement. From the Azerbaijani perspective, one problematic issue had been the appearance of the Russian oligarch of Armenian descent, Ruben Vardanyan, in the Karabakh region in September 2022. Vardanyan assumed the role of the so-called “state minister” in the de facto separatist regime in Karabakh and was officially dubbed by Baku as a “project of Moscow” (JAM-news, January 24). Aliyev even went so far as to publicly state the Azerbaijani side would not negotiate with this “Russian emissary” (see EDM, February 13). Nevertheless, partially as a result of Azerbaijan’s continuous pressure and the ongoing civilian protests on the Lachin road, Vardanyan was sacked from his position on February 23 (OC Media, February 23). In a broader context, the core reason for Vardanyan’s removal from office was the lack of vocal support for his role from Moscow and Yerevan, as even Pashinyan had remained wary of the Russian oligarch due to his close links to Russian President Vladimir Putin (T.me/Bagramyan26, February 24).

Notwithstanding the internal dynamics in the breakaway region, the main topic of discussion during the Blinken-mediated meeting between the two leaders on the sidelines of the Munich conference was the renewed draft version of the peace treaty that Azerbaijan had recently handed over to the Armenian government (Apa.az, February 16). However, at that time and since then, no significant progress has been made in solidifying the key points of the new draft proposal.

While both sides failed to reach a serious consensus on this issue, the Munich meeting represented an attempt by the US to restore the collapsed Brussels negotiations format. Both Baku and Yerevan have not opposed a return to this format in light of mutual growing discontent with the destructive role of Russia—notably the mounting failures of the Russian peacekeeping mission deployed in Karabakh (see EDM, February 8). Moreover, Azerbaijan’s proposal of border checkpoints could be a signal to Moscow of Baku’s growing dissatisfaction with the Russian peacekeeping force in the Lachin Corridor (JAM-news, January 13).

As a result of these efforts, Ned Price, spokesperson for the US State Department, announced that the next Aliyev-Pashinyan meeting will soon be held in Brussels, without providing a specific timetable (Report.az, February 23). In this vein, Washington considers the Brussels format as the only reliable platform for peace talks between Baku and Yerevan, as it better suits US interests and prevents Moscow from fully weaponizing the endless process of negotiations, which de facto “freezes” the situation. Hence, the possible decline of Russian influence over the peace process in light of the newly deployed EU civilian mission has triggered a range of criticism from Moscow (Euractiv, January 27).

Indeed, the new EU mission has raised eyebrows in Moscow, as the Kremlin traditionally does not tolerate any challenges within its perceived geopolitical sphere of influence. For Armenia, the new civilian mission is more symbolic in nature, as it has limited capacity to prevent any possible escalation between Baku and Yerevan. Simply put, this mission seems to be a reactionary move against the Russian proposal for a Collective Security Treaty Organization mission to be sent to the region, which was largely ignored by Yerevan and soundly rejected by Azerbaijan (Carnegie Politika, February 16).

Consequently, Putin recently held separate phone conversation with Aliyev and Pashinyan, respectively, and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov paid an official visit to Baku on February 27 (Kremlin.ru, February 23; Azernews, February 27). Lavrov’s visit came shortly after Vardanyan’s dismissal and the official deployment of the EU civilian mission. Nevertheless, Putin’s conversations and Lavrov’s visit have yet to yield any significant results regarding the peace process. As a result, it appears that the likelihood of Baku and Yerevan pivoting back to the EU-mediated process will keep growing steadily as both sides become increasingly disenchanted with Russian involvement.

Five killed in clash in Nagorno-Karabakh

March 6 2023
 6 March 2023

Three Nagorno-Karabakh police officers and two Azerbaijani soldiers have died in an armed clash in Nagorno-Karabakh. 

The incident took place on Sunday morning on a dirt road close to the Lachin Corridor, in an area not under Azerbaijan’s control. It centred around a small minibus.

Azerbaijani authorities said the bus was transporting weapons from Armenia to Stepanakert, while the authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh said it was on a regular police patrol.

One Nagorno-Karabakh police officer remains in hospital. 

Azerbaijan’s Defence Ministry issued a statement shortly after the incident, claiming that they had received information that military equipment, ammunition, and personnel were on board the minibus. Azerbaijan considers Nagorno-Karabakh to be territory of Azerbaijan temporarily under the control of Russian peacekeeping forces. 

‘An attempt was made to stop and check the vehicles carrying out illegal military transport’, reads the statement. ‘Shots were fired from the opposite side, and as a result of the shooting, there were casualties and injuries from both sides’.

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry also alleged that the bus was travelling via a ‘dirt road’, bypassing the Lachin Corridor, which has been blocked since 12 December. 

Nagorno-Karabakh’s Foreign Ministry categorically denied the Azerbaijani allegations, alleging that a ‘sabotage group’ from Azerbaijan’s armed forces was responsible for the attack. 

It added that Azerbaijani forces had violated the ceasefire on 2 March and in the early hours of 3 March, and suggested that Azerbaijan was ‘seeking to initiate an escalation of tension’. 

‘It should be noted that these attacks were carried out immediately after the talks on unblocking the Lachin Corridor held between representatives of Artsakh [Nagorno-Karabakh] and Azerbaijan on 1 March. Through its actions, Baku openly demonstrates its rejection of negotiations as a means of finding solutions to any issues’, stated the Nagorno-Karabakh Foreign Ministry. 

Both Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh’s foreign ministries described the incident as part of an attempt by Azerbaijan to ‘ethnically cleanse’ Nagorno-Karabakh. 

Armenia’s Foreign Ministry additionally stated that the minibus carried only four police officers and a service pistol, describing Azerbaijan’s version of events as ‘absurd’. 

‘The actions of the Azerbaijani forces cannot be described as anything other than terrorism’, the statement said. ‘The facts prove that this provocation was pre-planned and instructed by the highest leadership of Azerbaijan.’

‘Under current circumstances, sending an international fact-finding mission to the Lachin Corridor and Nagorno-Karabakh becomes a vital necessity’, the statement concluded. 

The Azerbaijani authorities, however, laid the blame for the incident with Armenia’s government.

‘In order to prevent such military provocations, Azerbaijan demands the implementation of the Tripartite Declaration, an end to the transportation of illegal weapons and ammunition, personnel, and mines from Armenia, and the immediate withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from the territories of Azerbaijan’, the Foreign Ministry stated

On 22 February, the UN International Court of Justice rejected a request from Baku to order Armenia to stop planting landmines or sponsoring their planting in ‘areas to which Azerbaijani civilians will return in Azerbaijan’s territory’. 

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry added that the incident ‘proved the necessity’ of introducing border control mechanisms between Azerbaijan and Armenia. In recent weeks, Azerbaijan has been demanding the establishment of Azerbaijani checkpoints on the Lachin corridor. 

On Monday, the European Union External Action Service published a statement, announcing that it ‘deplores’ the outbreak of violence. 

‘The circumstances surrounding this deadly incident need to be fully investigated’, the statement continued. ‘We urge all stakeholders to show restraint in order to prevent any further actions which could further undermine regional stability and threaten the peace process.’

For ease of reading, we choose not to use qualifiers such as ‘de facto’, ‘unrecognised’, or ‘partially recognised’ when discussing institutions or political positions within Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and South Ossetia. This does not imply a position on their status.


Yerevan Slams Baku’s Actions During Recent Shooting In Nagorno-Karabakh As ‘Terrorism’

March 6 2023

The Armenian Foreign Ministry slammed actions of the Azerbaijani armed forces as “terrorism” on Sunday, after three Armenian police officers were killed in a deadly armed clash in the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region

MOSCOW (UrduPoint News / Sputnik – 06th March, 2023) The Armenian Foreign Ministry slammed actions of the Azerbaijani armed forces as “terrorism” on Sunday, after three Armenian police officers were killed in a deadly armed clash in the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region.

Earlier in the day, Yerevan and Baku reported a shootout between the security forces of the two countries in Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan said that the shooting had left casualties on both sides, while Armenia called the incident a staged provocation, adding that Baku spread fake information about Yerevan’s alleged transfer of personnel and weapons to the conflict region.

“The official version of events put forward by Azerbaijan is absurd: they have not presented and cannot present any fact and justification supporting that version … The actions of the Azerbaijani forces cannot be described as anything other than terrorism,” the Armenian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

Yerevan also urged the global community and international organizations interested in the establishment of real peace in the region “to strongly condemn the use of force and the threat of force by Azerbaijan, as well as another manifestation of provoking large-scale hostilities,” and called for “active steps to prevent further violations of Azerbaijan’s own international obligations.

The South Caucasus is considered one of the most conflict-ridden regions of the globe, primarily due to the long-standing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the breakaway Nagorno-Karabakh region (also known as the self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh).

The most serious escalation of a protracted standoff in years took place in Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2022. The hostilities then ended with a Moscow-brokered trilateral declaration signed in November 2020. Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to completely cease fire and exchange prisoners.

However, the situation in the region has still remained tense, with occasional clashes happening between the two countries. In particular, in September 2022, a new wave of hostilities between Yerevan and Baku broke out in an area unrelated to Nagorno-Karabakh, marking the most dangerous situation in the region since 2020.

Armenia Refutes Shooting At Azerbaijani Positions On Border; Russia Calls For Restraint

March 6 2023
Written By

Bhagyasree Sengupta

Amid the growing animosities between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Defence Ministry of Azerbaijan said that some positions of its armed forces on its border with Armenia came under fire. On Monday, the ministry released a statement stating that Armenia is continuing with its provocation in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The two nations have been sparring over the autonomous oblast since 1988. On March 5, at least 3 police officers died in a shootout between Azerbaijani soldiers and the police of Nagorno-Karabakh. 

“As previously stated by Azerbaijan, Armenia did not stop its provocations even after the 44-day Patriotic War, which ended the 30-year occupation of our territories, did not fully withdraw the Armenian armed forces from the territories of Azerbaijan, and carried out the transportation of weapons, ammunition, and transferred and planted 2021-Armenia-produced landmines in Azerbaijan,” the statement read. “From 15:00 on March 5 and to 03:10 on March 6, the Azerbaijani army’s positions were fired on 19 times,” it added. The ministry informed that it had to take “retaliatory measures” to counter the Armenian forces.

Armenia, on the other hand, refuted the claims made by its archnemesis. “The statement issued by Azerbaijan’s Defense Ministry to the effect that on March 5 and in the early hours of March 6 Armenian forces allegedly opened fire on Azerbaijani positions on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border is disinformation,” the press service of the Armenian Defense Ministry asserted. 

The two neighbouring nations have been struggling to deal with the border conflict for time immemorial. But one major conflict between the two nations surrounds the  Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous oblast. The crux of the conflict between the two lies in the fact that while Nagorno-Karabakh lies within Azerbaijan, the region is home to 95% ethnically Armenian population. The ethnic Armenian forces allegedly backed by Armenia had controlled the region surrounding territories since 1994. Since then the two nations have had persistent animosities over the issue. In 2020, the two nations agreed to end the war, the whole ruckus left a widening road called Lachin Corridor as the only connection between Armenia and the autonomous region in Azerbaijan. The authorised corridor is a lifeline to the region’s 120,000 people. However, the corridor between the two nations has been blocked since December by protestors. The Armenian bloc believed that the protest was backed by Azerbaijani authorities. 

Amidst the growing tension between the two nations, Russia expressed its concern over the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis and urged both sides to maintain restraint. On Monday, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova asserted that Russia is gravely concerned about the escalating tensions in the region. “We express serious concern about escalating tensions in the zone of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Multiple ceasefire violations were taking place over these past few days. An armed incident that took place on March 5 caused loss of life on both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani sides,” the diplomat said as per the reports by Tass. “We are strongly urging the sides to exercise restraint and take steps to de-escalate the situation,” she added. 

Armenian Defense Ministry: Yerevan denied Baku’s statements about the shelling of Azerbaijani positions

March 6 2023

March 6 – BLiTZ. On March 6, the Ministry of Defense of Armenia made an official statement regarding the information of the Azerbaijani government that the Armenian side opened fire on the joint border.

The Armenian Defense Ministry denied the statements of Azerbaijan and called them invalid. According to the press service of the Armenian Defense Ministry, the country’s military forces did not fire at the border with Azerbaijan. Law enforcement agencies of Armenia reported that this is not the first time that the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry has been spreading false information.

Earlier, the Russian Foreign Ministry proposed to gather Armenia and Azerbaijan at the table regarding peace talks.

TASS: The Russian Defense Ministry said that the ceasefire was violated in Russia’s zone of responsibility in Karabakh

Russia expresses ‘serious concern’ over Karabakh after shoot-out

March 6 2023

TBILISI (Reuters) – Russia expressed “serious concern” on Monday over rising tensions in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, where it said five people had been killed in a shoot-out between ethnic Armenians and Azerbaijani troops on Sunday.

Russia’s defence ministry said the Azerbaijani troops had opened fire on a car carrying local law enforcement officials in the restive region, killing three and injuring another. In return fire, the pro-Armenian officials killed two Azerbaijani troops, Moscow said.

The deadly clash comes three months into the latest standoff between Baku and Yerevan over the region.

Nagorno-Karabakh is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan but populated mostly by ethnic Armenians. The two countries have fought two bloody wars and staged dozens of border clashes for control of the region over the last 35 years.

In December, Azerbaijanis claiming to be environmental activists started a blockade of the Lachin Corridor, the only road linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh.

Armenia says the blockade has led to food and medicine shortages, and that the protesters are government-backed agitators. Baku denies those claims and says the protesters are campaigning against illegal Armenian mining.

The fresh clash is seen as a key test of Russia’s influence in the south Caucasus as it wages its own war in Ukraine.

Moscow deployed thousands of peacekeepers to the region in 2020 to end six weeks of fighting there which killed thousands and saw Azerbaijan make significant territorial gains.

Russia and Armenia are officially allies through a mutual self-defence pact, but Moscow also seeks to maintain good relations with Azerbaijan.

In a statement on Monday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said: “We urge the parties to show restraint and take steps to de-escalate the situation. Over the past few days there have been repeated violations of the ceasefire regime.”

Russia’s defence ministry said its peacekeeping forces had intervened to stop Sunday’s clash and said it was working with both Azerbaijani and Armenian officials to figure out what had happened.

“The incident once again confirms the imperative need for Baku and Yerevan to resume negotiations as soon as possible,” Zakharova added.

(Reporting by Jake Cordell and Caleb Davis; Editing by Mark Trevelyan and Gareth Jones)

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/russia-expresses-serious-concern-over-162353238.html

ALSO READ AT
https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/russia-expresses-serious-concern-over-karabakh-after-shoot-out

"The Lachin corridor begins after crossing the border." Comments from Baku

March 6 2023
  • JAMnews
  • Baku

Azerbaijan comments on events in Karabakh

Azerbaijan is commenting on events in Karabakh that took place on Sunday, March 5. A clash between the soldiers of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces and Armenian military formations left dead and wounded on a detour road of the the Lachin corridor. According to Azerbaijani experts, official Baku should establish a checkpoint on the border with Armenia. “Only by blocking the border with Armenia can Baku can stop all illegal arms trafficking between Armenia and illegal gangs on the territory of Azerbaijan,” political observer Haji Namazov noted.


  • Georgian parliament considers draft “on foreign agents”, journalists lose accreditation
  • Two video stories about the life of people in NK after the blockade of the Lachin corridor
  • First official contact between Baku & Khankendi – “The start of the process is encouraging”

It was too early to draw conclusions from contacts with Karabakh Armenians through the mediation of the Russian military commandant’s office, Elkhan Shahinoglu, head of the Atlas analytical center, said.

“In the post-war period, the Azerbaijani army fought on the border with Armenia in response to provocations and captured strategic heights. But if shots are fired in Azerbaijan itself, in Karabakh, then I think the scale of the provocation is larger. The separatists, relying on the support of the Russian military, dared to go on the offensive against the Azerbaijani Armed Forces,” the political scientist said.

Shootout in Karabakh between Azerbaijani soldiers and police of the unrecognized republic of NK; all details known at the moment

In his opinion, the goals of Azerbaijan have not changed after the second Karabakh war:

“These goals can be described in several points:

separatists must be disarmed;
break the military connection between Armenia and the Karabakh separatists, and for this it is necessary to create border and customs posts at the end of the Lachin road;
in two years, Russian military personnel must leave the region.
But the course of events shows that Baku cannot postpone the realization of its goals for the future. Settlement of Lachin and Shusha should begin this year.

Azerbaijan cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the recent past. The safety of the residents of Karabakh and eastern Zangezur must be ensured. And this requires the neutralization of all elements that create such threats,” Shahinoglu said.

He also noted that yesterday’s statements by the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan contain a clause on the need to establish a checkpoint on the Lachin road:

“Obviously, the state structures of Azerbaijan are in solidarity with society on this issue. There is no other opinion on a checkpoint on the Lachin road. Installing an X-ray scanner at the checkpoints of Russian peacekeepers is useless and pointless. If this is not under the control of Baku, then ammunition and mines will continue to come from Armenia.

The repetition of the demand for a checkpoint in official statements suggests that such a decision has already been made by Baku, and a clause will appear in the near future.

Of course, this is not an easy task. On the one hand it is necessary to solve the military-technical side of the matter, on the other hand to avoid a collision with the Russian peacekeeping contingent.”

Azerbaijani politician and a leader of Republican Alternative opposition party, Natig Jafarli, commented on what happened on March 5 in Karabakh and suggested steps to be taken by Azerbaijan:

“Firstly, it becomes known that for months Armenia and the self-proclaimed regime have been telling tales about a “blockade”, but there are numerous alternative roads, and the Armenians use these roads with the direct organization and participation of Russian “peacekeepers”.

Azerbaijani analyst Shahin Elkhanoglu claims that Karabakh Armenians continue to arm themselves

Second, despite the brazen statement of Sergey Lavrov that the agreement of November 10, 2020 does not provide for the establishment of checkpoints, a checkpoint on the Lachin road must happen.

Is Azerbaijan governed by the November 10 statement? We do not have internal laws, the Constitution?! The requirements of the Basic Law of Azerbaijan on the protection of borders should not be fulfilled only because of a piece of paper not ratified by the Parliament? What is not in the tripartite statement should be regulated by the laws of Azerbaijan and its Constitution.

Third, the agenda of the Azerbaijani parliament should include the issue of the immediate withdrawal of “peacekeepers” from the territory of the country, because the Russian contingent is only engaged in the defense of the unrecognized regime, and does not fulfill its direct duties.

The Kremlin does not understand soft language. Parliament must necessarily adopt such a law, and given that the president has two months at his disposal to approve the laws adopted in the Milli Majlis, Russia must begin to fulfill its obligations during this two-month period. Otherwise, if the Azerbaijani state structures are unable to return to Khojaly, if the peacekeepers prevent the establishment of a checkpoint on the Lachin road, if they prevent contacts between Baku and Karabakh citizens of Azerbaijan of Armenian origin, the law must be signed, and the state must begin the process of withdrawing Russian soldiers from its territory.”

According to Armenian sources, the court ordered Azerbaijan to stop the protest on the Lachin road

According to political observer Haji Namazov, the tripartite statement of November 10, 2020 has nothing to do with the issue of protecting state borders:

“The trilateral statement refers only to the Lachin corridor. This corridor begins after crossing the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and fully belongs to the territory of Azerbaijan. This explains why Russian peacekeepers serve exclusively in Azerbaijan.

In other words, the Lachin corridor does not interfere and should not interfere with the protection of the state border by Azerbaijan. You pass the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan and find yourself on this notorious corridor.

Azerbaijani experts have long been talking about the existence of alternative roads connecting different points of the Lachin corridor with the region densely populated by Armenians in Karabakh. Only by blocking the border with Armenia can Baku can stop the entire illegal circulation of weapons between Armenia and illegal gangs on the territory of Azerbaijan.”

https://jam-news.net/the-lachin-corridor-begins-after-crossing-the-border-comments-from-baku/

Countries Real and Imagined: Chris McCormick on Creating His Own Armenia

LITERARY HUB  

March 6 2023

“I was not—and had never been—the only one comparing imagination to reality.”

VIA UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS PRESS
By Chris McCormick

 

In the capital city of a former Soviet republic, under the chandelier-scattered light of a hotel chain’s lobby, I stun the bellhop by speaking his language. “You’re Armenian?” he asks, and he looks so much like my cousin’s teenage son back in Los Angeles—the same ancient and boyishly disproportionate eyes and nose—that I want to squish him in a hug. “I’m half,” I explain, the first of many such explanations I’ll offer, to the first of many such strangers with my family’s face.

By the time we arrive at my room on the 12th floor, the bellhop and I have agreed to an arrangement: during my stay in Yerevan over the next two weeks, he won’t speak a word to me in English. “Lav,” I say, meaning good, one of only about a hundred words I can speak with any confidence. I promise to tip once I exchange my dollars for Armenian dram, but Davit—“Like David,” he says, starting our language lessons at the toddler level—refuses.

Even the idea of a transaction occurring between us seems to offend him, as if he were not an employee of the hotel, but a helpful stranger offering a hand, or a long-lost friend recognized across a vast and crowded pavilion, or someone even dearer to me than that.

I was in Armenia to research a novel I’d already written, to see a place I’d imagined all my life. My book, The Gimmicks, is set in a fictionalized version of my mother’s Soviet Armenian hometown, where a family wrestles with the legacy of the Genocide after one of their own is recruited by extremists intent on bringing the Turkish government, however violently, to justice.

Only after I finished the book and sold it to a publishing house, in that suspended moment between signing the contract and finalizing the manuscript, when every possibility of love and anguish was as tangible as the forthcoming book itself, did I arrange to make the trip. When the plane began its final descent, somewhere between Paris and Yerevan, I felt suddenly ill. What if every detail I’d imagined was a false one, if every scene I depicted was wrong? Who did I think I was, anyway, inventing a place that didn’t need invention? As the plane descended, I spiraled. I would have to scrap the book, it was obvious, and start from scratch.

It was possible the real Armenia would bear no resemblance to my own.

I calmed myself by thinking of my mother—I was being a baby, after all. In 1975, when she immigrated to the United States from then-Soviet Armenia at the age of nineteen, she had flown from the same airport I now approached. What had she imagined, standing at the gate with a suitcase in her grip? Certainly not a white husband from the American Midwest, not a pair of half-Armenian children, not one of them growing up to write books in a language she didn’t yet speak, to imagine his own version of her country, to arrive in the place she’d left behind—the very same spot—without her.

I’d been imagining Armenia for a long time, though I knew much of my early imagining had been muddled and wrong. I was four or five when I first heard my family members tell stories of the 1915 Armenian Genocide, and the gruesome facts of that event grew intertwined, in my mind, with the details of my mother’s otherworldly childhood. I pictured the violence taking place on the quiet streets of her hometown; I pictured her at my age, hiding from Turkish soldiers, though the genocide had occurred forty years before her birth.

Time and place grew confused in my imagination—maybe because the crimes, I was told, had never been punished. I found it difficult to grasp that the Armenia my mother called home was only a sliver of the Armenia it had once been, or that my mother was the granddaughter of the genocide’s victims, growing up in a country hundreds of miles away from the deportations and the murders.

In my imagination, my mother’s childhood converged with history into a swirling mess of achronological images called Armenia: massacres and forced marches; the rubble aftermath of the earthquake that killed my uncle’s sister; my grandfather’s illegal tailor shop; Soviet machinery and ancient shepherds; the shadowed plains beneath Mount Ararat; my mother and her childhood friend, who still sent kiss-stained letters back and forth across the world; my mother in the knee-deep snow; my mother, my age, climbing the apple trees that sprouted, somehow, from the silver smokestacks of a textile factory in the radiant dawn light.

After winning the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2017, Kazuo Ishiguro delivered a lecture that included a profound rumination on the link between fiction and memory. His parents had taken him from Japan to England when he was five, and by the time he began to write, he had yet to return. “My Japan was unique,” he says, “and at the same time terribly fragile, something not open to verification from outside that drove me on to work… What I was doing was getting down on paper that world’s special colors, mores, etiquette, its dignity, its shortcomings, everything I’d ever thought about the place, before they faded forever from my mind. It was my wish to rebuild my Japan in fiction, to make it safe, so that I could thereafter point to a book and say, Yes, there’s my Japan—inside there.”

Was this why I’d waited so long to travel to Armenia? Was this why I’d set my novel there in the first place? Only after getting down on paper the special colors of the world I’d been imagining—for the five years spent writing the novel, yes, but also for all the years of my life—was I ready to see the other Armenia, the real one. I hoped so, anyway.

My claim to the country was flimsy, after all, my remove from it even greater than Ishiguro’s from Japan. It was possible—likely, even—that my increasingly hazy imaginings would never seem as true to others as they felt to me. It was possible the real Armenia would bear no resemblance to my own, and in supplanting the place of my imagination would prove its falseness, unbearably, once and for all.

The first few days in Yerevan, I felt a certain dissonance, a disorienting kind of recognition. So much in the city—from the beautiful stonework on the grounds of the central square, which reminded me of the rugs I grew up playing on, to the familiar feasts of lavash and salted cheese and fresh tomatoes at cafes on Abovyan Street—revived my own memories of home, that place far from Armenia which I had no need to imagine, knowing it intimately. I began to speak with increasing confidence in Armenian. I felt I had come a long way in order to travel not very far at all.

One day early in my trip, over small cups of strong coffee at an outdoor cafe, I met with my mother’s cousin, Hatchik. Family lore has it that he tried and failed to convince my mother not to leave Armenia, more than four decades ago. Now he’d heard I was in the country, and he wanted to meet me. Hatchik is in his seventies, and on the day I met him a heatwave roiled across the continent. He would invite me to his apartment, he said, if not for the lack of air conditioning. Besides, when his wife died, she left a mess. I tried to offer my condolences, but my aunt—who’d traveled with me to help translate—was laughing. Hatchik’s wife had died forty years ago.

Hatchik asked about my other half, and I thought he meant Mairead, my fianceé, who had come to Armenia, but was off that day on her own adventure. But Hatchik meant blood—where did my father come from? “Irish,” I said. “Whiskey,” Hatchik said, and that was the end of his curiosity about the man my mother loves.

Hatchik was there to talk, and since I can’t speak Armenian nearly as well as I can understand it, I was glad for his stories. One of them went like this: Before his wife died, she and Hatchik would go to parties and come home with completely different kinds of information. She would ask him if he saw the crystal dish the hosts had purchased for the sweets, or the new stemware their drinks had been served in. But Hatchik had noticed none of that. “I came home talking about the short way two old friends had spoken to each other, belying a hidden tension,” he said, “or the way a wife had placed a hand gently on her husband’s arm when he reached for another glass of cognac.”

“You sound like a writer,” I said, and my aunt translated. Then we were talking about Saroyan—“Bravo,” Hatchik said, when I expressed my love for My Name Is Aram—and the injustice of Pushkin’s worldwide fame compared to Toumanyan’s relative unknown stature. “But who cares about fame?” Hatchik said. “A writer is interested only in his origins. That’s why you’re here, isn’t it? A writer wants to know, at every level, where it is he comes from.”

His words were on my mind a few days later when I visited the Temple of Garni, a first-century pagan temple restored in 1975 by a process called anastylosis, a method of architectural restoration that uses as many of the original stones as possible. Where the Garni restorers had to use new materials, they chose blank stones that stood out next to the ancient ones, the difference between the materials stark. They wanted visitors to be able to discern between the original and the added. In this way, I could see exactly what had been salvaged, and what had been supplied.

When Hatchik said origins, he meant genealogy and geography; he meant blood. But as I compared the spongy touch of the ancient basalt to the smooth faces of the blank stones, I considered the combination of memory and imagination I was really there to investigate. A kind of inventive anastylosis, memory and imagination—only I wasn’t sure which was the original, and which the support.

I felt I had come a long way in order to travel not very far at all.

The question followed me. A week into our trip, we left Yerevan for my mother’s hometown. The road to Kirovakan was a neatly combed part, one hundred kilometers long, in the russet valleys of summertime Armenia. Thin poplars lined the road on either side like pickets, and the distant hills remained fixed, the way objects in the distance stay true. The signs along the road had been updated: the Kirovakan of my mother’s time, and of my novel’s, has been replaced with Vanadzor. As we drew nearer, and as the elevation increased, the golden plains softened into lush and craggy vistas. A far-off, stone-walled village loomed in the hills, and Mairead—the only other person in the car who’d read my nascent book—nudged me to look. The village reminded her of one I’d written.

Was it pleasure I felt, or relief? Some aspect of my imagination had broken through to reality, and I felt a strange sense that I was returning to a place I had never been.

My aunt’s brother-in-law, Goryun, the brother of my uncle in Los Angeles, a painter I had grown up admiring, was behind the wheel. It was Goryun’s apartment we’d be staying at, and when I tried to thank him for the inconvenient trip—he’d driven the two hours to our hotel in Yerevan, only to turn around and bring us the two hours back—he waved my thanks away like a petty insult. He spoke no English, but his meaning was clear. Goryun was bald except for a dark, meticulously trimmed mustache, and the bridge of his nose was strong and angular. I thought the word “chiseled” just as my aunt explained what Goryun did for a living: masonry. “Those tiles in the central square in Yerevan,” my aunt said, “he did those.”

Halfway between Yerevan and my mother’s hometown, Goryun pulled the car over at a market called Gntuniq Bakery. For an hour in each direction, there was nothing but valley grasses and mountainous landscape, dotted every now and then by a village in the distance. We had seen people selling watermelons and corn along the side of the road, but Gntuniq Bakery was no small roadside affair. With its bright awnings and glistening rows of parked cars, it reminded me of the kind of park-and-browse enterprise I’d grown up visiting in desert towns between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

Inside was the bakery itself: a mile-long display of pastries, breads, boregs, sweets, and traditional sandwiches. Beside and beyond the counter were shelves and shelves of market goods—beverages and spices and candies and the like. But the main attraction was up front, as soon as you walked in. If I hadn’t known what a tonir was before seeing the clay ovens—if I hadn’t written a character using one into my novel—I might’ve worried for the lives of the bakers. Two smooth grey mounds rose from the floor to the height of the baker’s navel, each with an opening at its peak just wide enough for that same baker to topple inside, which is exactly what several men were doing when we entered the store.

After rolling and loading dough onto a cushion held in one hand, each baker approached the tonir and swung headfirst into it, holding onto the lip of the oven with his free hand and balancing his upside-down body by splaying his legs in the air. What he was doing inside the oven—slapping flat dough onto the piping hot inner walls—was invisible from where I stood. All I could see was a pair of legs emerging from a smoking hole, as if from a crater in the ground. Forget Ishiguro and Saroyan—I thought of Dante.

But the bakers—the performers, I want to say, because I wasn’t the only one aiming my camera at them while they worked—didn’t seem damned. They dove and posed their legs in wild shapes, like skateboarders at the edge of the half-pipe. They winked at the audience as they sauntered between the table where they rolled the dough and the tonir, and back again.

As we drove into Vanadzor, the gray sky threatened a storm over the green hills; throughout my bleached childhood in the Mojave Desert, my mother often told me she grew up in a place so green and gray she was teased for smelling like the rain. I’d had one of my own characters teased with the same strange insult, and I’d given another a job at the now-abandoned factories that loomed above us. I pictured the man I’d invented walking the potholed road below my feet.

But where was the statue of Kirov in the city square, so central to my characters’ childhoods? Obliterated since independence, maybe? (I asked, but it had never existed). Where was the apartment complex—the tallest building in the city—on whose rooftop my characters confessed their secrets? No roof stood out from the others as a likely spot. And why had I taken my characters to the Black Sea on the Georgian coast instead of nearby Lake Sevan, that turquoise cleft in the Ararat plain?

The map said Vanadzor, but Goryun and the locals still called it Kirovakan. As far as I could tell, this refusal on the population’s part to update its lexicon had little to do with a rigor-mortis grip on Soviet loyalties, but rather with the city’s uncanny sense of being frozen in time. The cause of that sensation occurred on December 7, 1988, when a convergence between the Eurasian and Arabian tectonic plates brought Kirovakan to the ground and sent my cousins—Goryun’s nieces—to America. More than thirty years later, I could still see the damage to the city: empty lots where buildings had once come down, roads split like old leather upholstery. A population cut nearly in half, from 150,000 in 1979 to 82,000 in 2016.

Compared to sunny, bustling Yerevan, Kirovakan was overcast and strikingly still, silent and easily mistaken for bleak, but beautifully surrounded by the hiddenite green of forested hills. When we arrived at the apartment building where Goryun lived with his wife, Gyuli, we found a nondescript, Soviet-era complex, and I followed Goryun up an echoing stairwell carved out of the building itself, concrete and poorly lit, the steps fissured and fairly creased.

But when we arrived at the apartment—pristine hardwood floors covered in ornately colorful and handmade rugs, Ionian columns abutting a bay window, an oil painting of flowers bursting from a vase that I recognized as the work of Goryun’s brother, my uncle in Los Angeles—the whole of Kirovakan seemed to shift and brighten.

We took a walk through the city, stopping first at the storefront where my grandfather had owned and operated a private tailor shop. I cupped my hands and looked through the glass panes. The place was empty, but my aunt drew vivid pictures in my mind: the sewing machines lined along the center of the floor, the pin-cushioned dummies, and my grandfather’s office in the back where he would meet with Soviet officials, charming them—bribing, I inferred, but couldn’t confirm—in order to keep the business running.

My mother had told me about her father’s business, about how she and her sister would hide the equipment when an official came around snooping. But in my muddled imagining, I’d pictured the secrecy happening at their own home, not in some storefront on the main thoroughfare of the city. The reality turned my grandfather—whom I’d known only vaguely for the last years of his life, when he suffered from Alzheimer’s—into someone more brazen and influential than I’d imagined.

The rhythm of this undertaking was impossible to plot out or predict, and how we danced to it was how we lived.

For twenty blocks or so, we traced the long walk my mother would take as a girl to her music school. The buildings themselves were less interesting to me than the story my aunt told of my mother’s strut: with her instrument—a heavy lap-harp called a qanun—wedged under her arm, she let her chin lead the way, putting on an un-girlish air of unapproachability and business. In my novel, I’d described a girl walking through Kirovakan with her instrument—a backgammon board, as it were—wedged just so under her arm, and I smiled at the coincidence of my mother appearing, however accidentally and obscurely, in my own imagination.

Finally, I was beginning to escape the cereal-box game of comparison I’d been playing. Far more interesting than what I’d got “right” and what I’d got “wrong” were the surprising harmonies I was starting to hear between the two worlds, these two Armenias in my mind. At my mother’s grade school, a small building with a lobby downstairs and classrooms above, I imagined my characters dragging their soaking boots out of the rain and up the steps, nearly running into my mother as a girl at the top of the stairwell. My aunt called me over to her. She had discovered a series of class photos from the 1960s hanging on the wall and pointed out the children and teachers she remembered, looking for my mother’s face.

Watching my aunt take photographs of the photographs, it occurred to me that I was not—and had never been—the only one comparing imagination to reality, memory to the present. We all do this, in one way or another, all the time. By writing a novel, I had made the process external, but it was a common task: to negotiate the imagined with the experienced, the remembered with the re-encountered, the original with the added-on. Constant but syncopated, the rhythm of this undertaking was impossible to plot out or predict, and how we danced to it was how we lived.

Back in Yerevan, I said goodbye to the bellboys, the cleaning crews, the bartenders, and the front desk clerks who rallied around Davit’s mission to help me learn the language. They asked about my stay, and I wanted to tell them what I’d seen: an uncle I’d never met throwing his arm around me like a son… a shot of mulberry vodka at a picnic table outside an 11th century monastery… the staircase on the other side of a blue gate where my grandfather used to sit with a dog and smoke… my aunt dancing with her sister-in-law, thirty years after the earthquake that made them housemates… a local woman on the streets of Kirovakan, curious about my looks and my limited language, following me for blocks and blocks…my book, imperfect but more than mine… my mother, who was not there, and everywhere.

But I’d said enough. On paper, I’d gone to fact-check my fiction, to verify the details in a story I was telling. In the end, though, just the opposite was true. I hadn’t gone to test the accuracy of my storytelling, but to measure how well I’d listened.

From “My Armenia: Imagining and Seeing.” by Chris McCormick, published in We Are All Armenian: Voices from the Diaspora, edited by Aram Mrjoian. Copyright © 2023. University of Texas Press. Published with permission of the author. All rights reserved.