“This study is primarily aimed at documenting what happened or is happening. In Armenia, there is a serious problem in this regard because in public debates, we mainly have politicized theses related to the Artsakh problem. The most common thesis after the war is that if we had handed over the lands in time, there would not have been a war, it is completely false, and this report proves it,” political scientist and economist Hrant Mikayelyan stated in a press conference.
The Armenian Project scientific and educational non-governmental organization authored “The Nagorno-Karabakh negotiation process: From a losing autocracy to a victorious Karvachar” report, the presentation of which took place on Friday. This scientific-analytical work presents the history of the international negotiation process on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, showing the negotiation process, the main milestones and the development of the positions of the Armenian side. “But the purpose of this study is not propaganda. It’s a different matter that this or that mass media or social groups can use the theses of this report and influence public debates,” emphasized Hrant Mikayelyan.
He also referred to Nikol Pashinyan’s statement yesterday that RA is not guided by the logic of the corridor in the context of unblocking the roads. He was talking about the road, not the corridor. Hrant Mikayelyan mentioned: “Strategically and economically, Armenia may suffer serious losses, there are risks. Theoretically, there could be benefits if Sweden were in Azerbaijan’s place. So let’s not forget who we are dealing with. As for the claim that it is not a corridor, but a road, then let’s remember Aliyev’s claim. Even if Pashinyan does not want a corridor, and Aliyev forces him, does Pashinyan object? Unfortunately, we have experience that the opposite happens, that is, Aliyev is able to whitewash Pashinyan. Therefore, I am not sure that it will not become a corridor.”
Read also
Luiza Sukiasyan
