How should a politician who holds the greatest power in their country act after losing a war, losing the support of traditional allies, and failing to find new ones? The answer is simple: they should focus on securing their country through political means and work to normalize relations with their neighbors, particularly with those they recently fought. However, what is Nikol Pashinyan doing in this situation? He is attempting to delay signing a peace treaty as long as possible and inventing increasingly absurd claims against Azerbaijan. Recently, he came up with a new line: claiming it is shocking that the president of Azerbaijan refers to the territories of Armenia as "Western Azerbaijan."
The problem for Pashinyan is that the lands now known as Armenia were referred to as Azerbaijan up until the mid-19th century. Specifically, these lands were part of the larger historical region of Azerbaijan.
As early as the 18th century, Russian officer S.D. Burnashev, who represented the Russian Empire in Georgia, wrote about the "Ardibijanian cities of Erivan and Ganja and their lands" and described the area as "Ardibijan," which included territories corresponding to present-day Armenia. He went on to note: "In relation to the current status of these lands, the area known as Ardibijan, starting from the north, borders Georgia, specifically the Kingdoms of Kakheti and Kartli (although these were also considered part of the Ardibijan lands in previous times); to the east lies the Caspian Sea and the province of Gilan, to the south the Araks region, and to the west, Turkey." Additionally, in his reports to the Russian Tsar, Burnashev referred to Azerbaijan (comprising 10 khanates) and Georgia in the South Caucasus.
Tsar Peter I, in his decree from June 12, 1724, mentioned "Karabakh, Ganja, Erivan, Nakhchivan, and other Ardibijanian provinces." Similarly, Tsar Peter II referred to "all the space between the Kura and Araks rivers, that is, all of Adirbijan" in a 1727 decree. Russian Emperor Paul I, in 1799, wrote in a letter to the State College of Foreign Affairs that "in Azerbaijan, a region bordering the Ottoman Empire... there are possessions governed by specific khans, such as the Ganja, Erivan, Khoy, Karabakh, and Tabriz khanates."
Thus, Russian tsars referred to the land that now forms Armenia as Azerbaijan. While the spelling of the name "Azerbaijan" may have varied at the time, with terms like "Adrebidjan" or "Aderbaijan" being used, the term "Azerbaijan" is unmistakable. It clearly differs from the word "Armenia."
This same identification of the region as Azerbaijan can be found in maps from the time, not only those produced in Russia but also British, German, and other European maps. These maps from the 18th and early 19th centuries show the region now called Armenia as part of Azerbaijan.
This historical fact aligns with reality. Up until the first quarter of the 19th century, the lands of what is now Azerbaijan and Armenia were home to ten Azerbaijani khanates: Baku, Ganja, Karabakh, Erivan, Nakhchivan, and others.
The Russian Empire, expanding its territories southward and southwestward, gradually took control of these khanates, using both force and diplomacy. After the Treaty of Turkmenchay in 1828, Russia also began creating a "Christian outpost" by resettling ethnic Armenians from the Ottoman Empire and Persia into the Erivan and Karabakh khanates. Tsar Nicholas I even attempted to establish an "Armenian region" here, but this was later abandoned in 1840. However, the resettlement continued, and the number of Armenians living on Azerbaijani lands grew, while Azerbaijanis were gradually displaced. In 1918, this led to the declaration of an independent Armenia in the South Caucasus, which later became the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic in the Soviet Union.
Just as the division of Azerbaijan after the Gulistan and Turkmenchay treaties led to the terms "Northern Azerbaijan" and "Southern Azerbaijan," the creation of Armenia from the lands of the Erivan Khanate gave rise to the term "Western Azerbaijan." Prior to the establishment of Armenia, there was no need for this term—this region was all part of a unified historical Azerbaijan.
This historical truth is often ignored by the Armenian authorities, who continue to isolate their people from the facts. This is evident in their refusal to allow Armenian scholars to work in Turkish archives, despite Turkey being one of the first countries to open its archives, including sensitive documents related to World War I and the Armenian issue.
In Armenia, there is a concerted effort to erase the historical legacy of Azerbaijan in the region. Almost all of the historical architecture in Yerevan has been destroyed, except for the Blue Mosque, which remains as a reminder that the current capital of Armenia was once an Azerbaijani city. Additionally, nearly all historical toponyms have been wiped from the maps. The Zanga River became "Razdan," the Arpachay River became "Akhurian," and Lake Geicha became "Sevan." Armenia is the only country that, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the wave of "decommunization," did not restore historical names to its cities and towns—because many of these names were Turkic in origin. Armenian officials even complained that they were tired of coming up with new Armenian names. In contrast, the United States, for example, has embraced the preservation of Native American names for many states, rivers, mountains, and cities. But in Armenia, even the mere mention of Turkic toponyms causes hysteria. A few years ago, a major scandal erupted in Armenia when some "concerned citizens" discovered that the town of Stepanavan was historically called "Jalaloglu," and Spitak was once "Hamamly." This sparked a wave of public outcry—how could these Turkic names be included in Armenian history textbooks?
Now, Pashinyan has taken up this cause and is outraged by the fact that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev refers to Armenia as "Western Azerbaijan." Let us remind the Armenian Prime Minister that not only the president of Azerbaijan but also the leaders of many other countries have historically referred to the lands of present-day Armenia as Azerbaijan or the Azerbaijani khanates.
Would it not be more just for Pashinyan to return to his people and country the historical names of the 2,000 toponyms and hydronyms, as other former Soviet republics did? Instead, in the heart of the Erivan Fortress, tourists are now offered alcoholic beverages in the Tepabashi Mosque, just as in the occupied Karabakh, pigs were kept in mosques. Would it not be more civilized to return history to the people of Armenia, to eliminate the white spots, which the authorities continue to withhold from the Armenian people?
It is evident that this policy of forcibly severing the people from historical truth is connected to plans for aggression and territorial expansion against neighboring countries. Armenia, far from being a crossroads of civilizations as Pashinyan claims, has become a dead-end.
Fuad Akhundov
political analyst