Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, speaking in an interview with the “Russia 24” TV channel, said: “…When Armenia occupied the seven regions of Azerbaijan for many, many years, and then, when it was desperate to resolve the issue politically, Russia offered many options, which the former leaders of Armenia did not accept very well and positively, wanting to keep the territories to which it never had any pretensions. Therefore, Azerbaijan has returned the lands that belong to it.”
In this regard, in a conversation with Aravot.am, the former deputy speaker of the National Assembly, Eduard Sharmazanov, said. “First, Azerbaijan did not liberate but occupied Shushi, Hadrut, and a part of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Secondly, with its actions, Azerbaijan has spat on the principles presented by the Minsk Group co-chairmanship, France, Russia, and the USA, because the three co-chair countries of the Minsk Group, the presidents of those three countries have made several statements, according to which the right to self-determination of the people of Artsakh is uncontested. Then, one of the principles formed by the co-chairing countries of the Minsk Group is the non-use of force and the non-use of the threat of force.
Therefore, if Azerbaijan disregards and rejects the peaceful settlement with a military solution, it directly spits on the principles formed by that co-chairmanship. Thirdly, RA was not a party to the conflict in any document; the NK conflict is not a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan, as Azerbaijan has wanted to present for years. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a struggle for the right to self-determination of the people of Artsakh, it is not a territorial dispute, and Armenia is not a party to it. There was no international document, at least until 2018; after that, I don’t know what Nikol secretly agreed on, but until 2018, there was no such thing as Armenia being a party to the conflict.
Read also
What do we demand from Lavrov, Borel, and Blinken? Our demand should be from Nikol; Nikol went to Prague to agree. He brought a declaration of Almaty (Alma-Ata); I don’t know from where, with arbitrary interpretation. According to Lavrov’s statement, Nikol Pashinyan and Aliyev agreed that Nagorno-Karabakh should be a part of Azerbaijan. That’s it; that person handed over.
Americans also say: if Nikol decided, why shouldn’t Americans, Russians, and Europeans agree? Can we think more about them? As for Lavrov’s assessments, I counter; Azerbaijan did not liberate; it occupied, it is an aggressor state, it is an occupier. No one, neither in the past nor in the present, has more legal grounds than the people of Artsakh to exercise their right to self-determination, neither in Crimea, nor in Donbas, nor in Scotland, nor here and there.”
To the question: Lavrov says concerning the previous authorities that the proposals presented by the Russian side were not accepted positively, wanting to keep the territories to which they never had any ambitions, are these criticisms acceptable, Sharmazanov answered. “On January 13, 2021, the Russian Co-Chairman Igor Popov very clearly presented the document formulated by the Russian side and the Co-Chairs in general on the official website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, where the principles were clearly stated. And that same Igor Popov, the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Russian co-chairman, clearly says that the problems arose after the change of power in Armenia when the Armenian authorities unilaterally tried to violate the negotiation process. And as for the process related to our authorities, the Serzh Sargsyan-Edward Nalbandyan couple and our government never negotiated the issue of unilaterally ceding territories.
For us, the problem was to reach the status. For that, we were leaving five regions in the negotiated document, but Artsakh had an intermediate status, Kelbajar and Lachin remained under our control, and the authorities of Artsakh had the right to full governance; Artsakh had to join international structures, where de jure recognition is not mandatory. The future status of Artsakh would be fixed by a referendum; it would have a mandatory expression of will. It is the document presented by the co-chairs and publicly presented on the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry. And listen to Lukashenko’s and Serzh Sargsyan’s recordings regarding land giving, see yes; we were not land givers. Serzh Sargsyan has very clearly said that our goal is not to give or not to give land; our goal is to achieve the realization of the right to self-determination of the people of Artsakh.”
Hripsime JEBEJYAN
