Baku, September 17, AZERTAC The visits of representatives of the diplomatic corps accredited in Azerbaijan to the Garabagh and East Zangezur regions have left distinct traces in the socio-political sphere of Armenia. The campaign conducted in this country, as a manifestation of a consistent and systematic hysterical approach, does not merely reflect a paradoxical contrast with the peace agenda. At a more complex level, it can be characterized as a collection of actions that demonstrate, in quotation marks, the understanding of peace held by the Armenian government and society. Information context On September 11–12, representatives of the diplomatic corps accredited in Azerbaijan made a visit to Garabagh and East Zangezur.The diplomats were accompanied by Assistant to the President of Azerbaijan and Head of the Foreign Policy Affairs Department of the Presidential Administration Hikmet Hajiyev.The diplomatic delegation visited local historical and cultural monuments. Within this framework, the diplomats also visited the Ganjasar and Khudavang monasteries. Reactions and questions in Armenia Attacks by Armenian politicians, public activists, and Armenian media against the diplomatic corps show that this country approaches the peacemaking process insincerely. Thus, the fact that the revanchist ideology dominant in Armenian public consciousness has still not departed from the political stage raises two important questions. First question: Does the public campaign conducted against Azerbaijan reflect the state position of Armenia?In the campaign conducted overall, two diplomats were primarily targeted: Chargé d'Affaires of the United States to Azerbaijan Amy Carlon and EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus Magdalena Grono.Armenian lobby organizations "armed" against Azerbaijan and their information tools keep inflammatory positions on the agenda during discussions.Relations between the Armenian authorities and the Armenian lobby are complex against the backdrop of new geopolitical realities created by the Republic of Azerbaijan in the region and their consequences. The concept put forward by Azerbaijan for peace and security in the region by changing the conflict-based status quo has directed the information pressure of the Armenian lobby toward the Armenian authorities. Consequently, cracks in state-lobby relations have widened. However, in a deeper sense, neither the lobby nor the Armenian authorities have distanced themselves from Armenian ideology, and they still share similar content. This means that statements by the Armenian authorities regarding peace can be characterized more as eye-wash. At this point, appearing decoratively contradictory with the Armenian lobby is perhaps very much a part of the policy of the Armenian leadership.As for the executive branch of Armenia, it has maintained a quiet stance toward the diplomats' visits. Neither the Office of the Prime Minister nor the Ministry of Foreign Affairs protested the matter. However, from an analytical perspective, Armenia's behind-the-scenes role in the process cannot be ruled out. This version gains strength in the example of parliament, the legislative branch of power. Thus, the highest-ranking official of the Armenian parliament reacted to the diplomats' visit via a protest note.   Vice Speaker of the Armenian Parliament Ruben Rubinyan targeted EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus Magdalena Grono. Rubinyan is a board member of the "Civil Contract" party led by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. The shadow of the Armenian authorities in the campaign passes through an assessment of responsibility in this matter.Opposition chairwoman of the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee Lilit Galstyan accused the government of "indecisiveness" and demanded that the Armenian MFA issue a mandatory "harsh protest statement" against this visit. Perhaps the Armenian authorities could find an excuse for this as well, claiming they had no responsibility in the process. However, evading the issue in Ruben Rubinyan's position would be nothing more than imitation.Furthermore, the official responsibility that Armenia wants to hide from Azerbaijan can also be found in the content of another statement.Armenian representatives of the "Bridge of Peace" platform, which brings together Armenian and Azerbaijani civil societies and supports the normalization process, expressed concern over the "negative" impact of recent events on the situation in the region. They made subtle hints in search of "Armenian heritage" in the region. The "Bridge of Peace" is supported at the state level, and the joining of the Armenian platform to the chorus of the ongoing campaign cannot be considered accidental.Since the Armenian government represents the interests of Armenian society, requests coming from the public are taken into account in its perception. From this standpoint, going a step further, one can think that Armenia still looks at the regional realities formed under Azerbaijan's leadership through an old window.In that case, the option of network-based direction of the ideological and political line hidden behind official Yerevan's "peace" rhetoric arises. Second question: Is Armenian society ready for peace? Analyzing the latest information operations of Armenian propaganda circles makes it possible to answer "no" to this question.The stance demonstrated by Armenian society against Azerbaijan is, in essence, built on a subjective "defense reflex" stemming from long-standing geopolitical stereotypes. Armenian political and public circles find it difficult to accept the new geostrategic situation and security architecture created in the region with Azerbaijan's dominance.The most notable point is that the campaign protesting the existing status quo fails to propose an alternative peace thesis based on constructivism that would serve to establish a fundamental, reliable, and lasting peace in the region instead.Instinctive reactions in society based on hysteria against peace create a focus point on the government in hidden propaganda mechanisms. The Armenian leadership seems to aim in this way to create a diplomatic shelter for itself against external pressures and to keep the ideological front against Azerbaijan open through the hands of the masses.As can be seen, under several assumptions, the distribution of responsibility of the Armenian authorities can be sensed within the framework of the latest propaganda campaign. In this scenario, the conclusion emerges that the behind-the-scenes commissioner of certain propaganda actions is the Armenian government. What will Azerbaijan do? Official Baku has ensured justice through war. Diplomatic contacts that did not contribute to resolving the frozen conflict, Armenian provocations on the frontline at every opportunity, and negotiations reaching a dead end made war an absolute defense necessity. The war, and three years later the anti-terrorist operation, became a trend developing regional relations. Although Azerbaijan ended the conflict by armed means stemming from defense and security challenges, it complements its continuation with a peace agenda.In this program, regional prosperity, welfare, living in a secure environment, and inter-community integration processes hold a key place. Therefore, the organization of visits to the liberated territories, both so far and in the future, is based on a sovereign decision made within the framework of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. No propaganda can cast a shadow over this. Furthermore, in Garabagh and East Zangezur, there exists the national and cultural heritage of Caucasian Albania and the Azerbaijani people, the promotion of which has no relation to Armenia.