'Nikol Pashinyan's statements on arms control not up for discussion' – Azerbaijani experts on Armenian PM’s remarks

Azerbaijani experts on Pashinyan’s remarks

“Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan recently told journalists that ‘two points of the peace treaty between Azerbaijan and Armenia remain unresolved.’

He also stated that Yerevan had received Baku’s response to the draft agreement.

‘This is already the 12th amendment to the peace treaty. The document reflects Azerbaijan’s stance on our previous proposals. We are currently analyzing the situation to formulate counter-initiatives,’ the prime minister noted.

According to him, the sides have yet to reach an agreement on the deployment of European observers at the border, while Baku has not officially responded to Yerevan’s proposal on opening communications.

‘We have put forward our proposals and hope to receive a positive response from Azerbaijan. This concerns the restoration of railway links between the two countries, including cargo transit from Azerbaijan’s western regions to Nakhchivan through Armenia’s sovereign territory. In turn, Armenia would gain access to the Yeraskh-Meghri (Arazdayan-Meghri) railway route,’ Pashinyan added.

• Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service claims that EU will pay €120 per day to participants of protests in Georgia
• Over 20 people die from medical alcohol poisoning in Baku within week
• ‘No grounds to reject Yerevan’s proposal on unblocking’ – Pashinyan

These statements by the Armenian Prime Minister have sparked discussions among Azerbaijani experts. Below are comments from two political analysts.

“There has never been a case in history where the victorious country fulfilled the demands of the defeated.“

Elkhan Shahinoglu, head of the Atlas Research Center and political analyst:

“Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated that two provisions of the peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia have yet to be agreed upon. “The parties have failed to reach an agreement on the deployment of European observers along the border,” Pashinyan said, emphasizing that Baku has also not responded positively to Yerevan’s proposal to open communications. He added that official Baku has ignored Yerevan’s suggestion of a mutual arms control and verification mechanism.

Pashinyan’s statements on arms control are not up for discussion, as this issue is not included in the peace agreement. It is illogical for a country that lost a war to propose mutual arms control to the victorious side. Throughout history, no victorious nation has complied with the demands of a defeated one. Moreover, Azerbaijan’s military capabilities are not solely linked to Armenia; we must be prepared for various regional challenges.

Pashinyan’s statements on arms control are not up for discussion, as this issue is not included in the peace agreement. It is illogical for a country that lost a war to propose mutual arms control to the victorious side. Throughout history, no victorious nation has complied with the demands of a defeated one. Moreover, Azerbaijan’s military capabilities are not solely linked to Armenia; we must be prepared for various regional challenges. Pashinyan’s claim that “the parties failed to reach an agreement on the deployment of European observers” is directed at Yerevan, not Baku. Had Pashinyan not stationed observers in Armenia at the request of the EU and France, this issue would not have caused disagreements between Baku and Yerevan. If peace talks are underway and a peace agreement is to be signed, the observers, who contribute to tensions, must leave the region. This is Baku’s legitimate demand. Their continuous movement along the border and their surveillance of Azerbaijani territories through binoculars have become an additional source of friction between the two countries.

Regarding the opening of communication routes, Pashinyan has proposed two options. His first suggestion is that Armenia is ready to open a corridor from Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan under the same principles as the route through Iran—an idea that has been discussed multiple times. The second proposal involves Yerevan simplifying road access on a reciprocal basis, which is also not a new suggestion. It appears that Pashinyan remains opposed to the unrestricted passage through the Zangezur corridor.”

“Armenia uses manipulation to convey its goals to external geopolitical centers”

Political analyst Ilyas Guseynov:

“Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has made statements denying all activities related to the preparation and signing of a peace treaty. Until now, it was understood that 15 out of the 17 points of the peace agreement had been agreed upon, while the remaining two articles were still under negotiation.

One of these issues concerns the withdrawal of a third party from the Azerbaijan-Armenia border, directly linked to the presence of the EU’s civilian mission in Armenia. The other issue is related to the commitment that Azerbaijan and Armenia will not file lawsuits against each other in international courts.

However, it seems that Nikol Pashinyan, in an attempt to mislead public opinion, is shifting the focus from the mutual non-litigation agreement in international organizations and courts to Baku’s refusal to accept Yerevan’s proposal for opening communications. I believe this is highly inappropriate.

On the other hand, Azerbaijan and Armenia have excluded the issue of opening communications from the peace treaty, with the primary goal being the signing of the agreement.

Azerbaijan has additional demands, including amendments to Armenia’s Constitution and the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group. At the same time, discussions are ongoing regarding border delimitation and demarcation, as well as the opening of communications, with various meetings taking place.

However, raising this issue as a global problem at this stage is entirely unacceptable. Moreover, introducing the idea of mechanisms for mutual control and arms verification stems from revanchist sentiments. Armenia is rapidly militarizing and using such manipulations to attract the attention of external geopolitical centers toward its objectives.”

Azerbaijani experts on Pashinyan’s remarks

Azerbaijani experts on Pashinyan’s remarks