The EU's 'Diverging Narratives' Is Both-Sides-ism

The day after Azerbaijan’s revisionist tour of occupied Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh), EU Special Representative Magdalena Grono visited Armenia and was photographed at a monastery. But the hosts argue one photograph cannot erase what came next: her post referring to “deeply diverging views and narratives” over whether Gandzasar is Armenian. Asbed’s response is blunt, calling it he-said-she-said both-sides-ism that treats documented history and state revisionism as equal claims.

Hovik pushes back on the idea that this is merely careful diplomacy. Grono, he notes, is not a lightweight or a newcomer to the South Caucasus, with 25 years of experience in foreign policy and conflict resolution and a role advising the Brussels process that recognized Artsakh as Azerbaijan. If a diplomat with that background frames a policy of cultural erasure as competing narratives, he argues, she should be condemned loudly for sponsoring the revisionism, not excused for tact. Her office, at minimum, should have said something.

The exchange gets at a recurring theme of the episode: the international normalization of Azerbaijani conduct within the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process. The hosts contrast the EU’s language with the hard evidence of erasure, satellite imagery of the demolished Holy Mother of God Cathedral in Stepanakert, churches and cemeteries replaced by parks. They also note that Yerevan itself stayed silent, so no one holds foreign envoys accountable. The clip crystallizes a wider frustration: when documented history is downgraded to one narrative among many, the burden of proof quietly shifts onto the victims, and Ilham Aliyev’s government pays no price for rewriting the past.