In Washington, Brussels, Moscow and elsewhere, Turkish President Abdullah Gul, Prime Minister Erdogan, Foreign Minister Davutoglu and others have long advocated combining onto one political agenda their country’s normalization of relations with Armenia and the resolution of Mountainous Karabagh’s conflict with Azerbaijan.

While the western media is reacting to the signing of protocols Saturday as if 100 years of Turkish-Armenian animosity has been whitewashed by however much ink is required to sign foreign ministers' names, statements by Turkey’s Prime Minister reveal a different and perhaps more accurate picture that demands prudent examination before Armenia’s parliament signs off on the documents.

Just a day after Armenia’s Foreign Minister did as he was told (by Hillary Clinton and others) to put pen to paper, Turkey's Prime Minister Recyip Erdogan says Armenia must withdraw from the occupied territories bordering Nagorno-Karabakh.

According to news reports Erdogan says Turkey cannot take a "positive step" toward opening the joint border with Armenia until Armenian troops give up ground they overtook in the battle to secure a perimeter for Karabakh.

Serzh Sargsyan may not be (in fact, isn’t) the president we wish for, but:

Criticism he has received since Wednesday night’s football match v. Turkey is simply absurd and diminishes the voices of those who have just reason to blister the president with legitimate disapproval, but lose credibility themselves in pettiness.

In case you haven’t followed, here’s what happened.

The history of the Armenian people has been an ordeal of suffering, tragedy, and genocide. In this millennial series of misfortunes, however, never has the nation invited destruction upon itself.

But today it stands at the brink, with a small group of improperly elected leaders apparently racing toward a forsaking of both identity and interest.

An American Diaspora active in Armenian issues has written a comprehensive analysis of the Armenian-Turkish protocols, in which he scientifically argues that:

“What appears to be an Armenian concession to the Turks is at best a method for Turks to delay international debate on genocide recognition. It is unclear why the Turkish side sees this as a victory unless delaying recognition was their original goal. Using such a commission as a delay tactic will ultimately result in a strategic blunder as Turkish disingenuousness will be clear to the international community.”

Governments and commentators have hailed the two recently-announced protocols between Turkey and Armenia. If signed and ratified, they will provide a timetable for the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border and the establishment of full diplomatic relations.

Unfortunately, the exuberance in Western capitals is based on energy routes, geopolitics and the desire to smoothe the way for Turkey as a regional power and EU aspirant. It ignores the sinister aspects of the deal.

The apparent unraveling of the Heritage party is met with profound disappointment.

Armenia has long needed a party driven by public service and the ideal of common representation rather than by the transparent greed and hunger for power that too often characterizes law making and leadership here. Heritage has been the welcomed exception.

My time in Armenia has run out, and as I sit in my home back in America, I find myself thinking about the extent to which my trip has affected me and about where Armenia will fit into my life after having come here, lived here, and worked here.

Though my time in Armenia was brief and really only gave me a glimpse into the social, political, and economic landscapes of the country, there was something about being there and seeing things firsthand that made it difficult to leave.

With my last two weeks here just around the corner, I am having a hard time with the idea of letting go. Sure, I look forward to all of the familiarities of home, but I cannot deny that I have not been missing them much because I have established my own familiarities here in Yerevan.

Despite my feelings, I cannot help but contemplate how locals here become offended when Diaspora come to this country and call it home. I understand their perspective because I know very well that I am not a native here; I stand out simply because of my natural demeanor, and that is just the way it is.

It is often easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. In another time but at the same place, presidential contender Adlai Stevenson was setting the scene generations later for President Obama and his administration.

As unfair as it is to be held up as everyone's lighthouse of liberty and justice, Barack Obama was elected president on his self-projection as that very beacon. He and his world-power colleagues, for both principle and posterity, must not allow themselves the comfort, however transient, to play feel-good god in mockery of historical tragedy and in defiance of contemporary imperatives to right the wrongs of the past.