What response did he send to Moscow?

The President of the RA responded to the RF President’s address yesterday

After the sensational meeting in Kazan, RF President Dmitry Medvedev addressed presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. That statement was passed on to the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan by Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov from 7th to 8th of July. As early as during the official Moscow visit, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Elmar Mamedyarov rushed to pass on Ilham Aliyev’s response to the above-mentioned address to the President of Russia. The President of our country did the same thing only yesterday. RA President’s press secretary Armen Arzumanyan spread a message yesterday on the fact that Serzh Sargsyan made an official response to President of Russia Dmitri Medvedev’s address with proposals on Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement proposals. Moreover, Armen Arzumanyan did not uncover the essence of the response and he did not go into details by what means it was passed on to the Russian President. This arouse certain comments. One mentioned that this is the Armenian arrière-pensée, another that suspending the answer was not in our interest and other comments like these. “A1+” tried to clarify from the press agency of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs whether the address in response was taken to Moscow by Edward Nalbandian; press secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tigran Balayan refused to comment on the issue related to Serzh Sargsyan’s response, saying, “It was an address of the president of one country to the president of another country and therefore the response to that must be made on president’s level.”
Yesterday we tried to clarify through the representatives of the political forces what might be written in the President’s response and whether that response was the very thing it should have been.
Yesterday PAP faction MP, deputy head of the NA permanent committee on economic issues Vardan Bostanjyan, commenting at our request what the President of Armenia could have responded to Russia’s address, said, “In any case, rushing and interpreting the President of the Republic, suggesting or predicting what would be the response can be presented as an ungrateful thing done by Bostanjyan, however I am sure in one thing that the response should probably be in the interest of our state and should be in accordance with the principles affirmed by the international community. Whether we will call those the Madrid or any other principles, does not matter, but what matters is that those take into account the remarks, approaches of the international community, take into account the interests of our country and are aimed at peacefully resolving the issue.”
Heritage faction member, NA MP Armen Martirosyan is convinced that Serzh Sargsyan’s response to Medvedev is certainly important, but it is more important not what Medvedev expects, but what response our people expect, “Hence, if that response is in the scope of our people’s desires, I think it will be assessed positively by the society and if there is any departure from that social and all-national demand, naturally, that response will not be accepted. It means that if they try to solve that issue at any moment, without taking into account the struggle and real desires of the Armenian people, naturally that resolution cannot be realized. I generally think that Serzh Sargsyan would do much better, if he made that response, in accordance with his speech in Strasbourg and now presents in the spirit of that speech what proposals they are, to what he agrees and to what not, what was proposed in Kazan to what he agreed and Aliyev not, and in this case, it will be clear for us for what resolution the authorities of our country go.”
Yesterday when information was spread that Serzh Sargsyan had already sent response to Medvedev, some people started to talk scandal that since Aliyev had responded to Medvedev earlier, it meant that he was more unshakable in his responses and positions. We inquired whether the opposition MP thinks so too. Armen Martirosyan thought the opposite, “I think the last respondent is in more beneficial condition; anyway, the last respondent can know at least what his predecessor’s answer is, before making his response.”