Who’s to blame? Pashinyan invites Armenia’s ex-presidents to debate Karabakh issue
Pashinyan invites Armenian ex-presidents for debate
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has taken to social media with a series of posts addressing the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the negotiation process surrounding its resolution. In one post, he reiterated his claim that “since 1994, following the establishment of the ceasefire, negotiations were aimed at returning Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan.” However, he offered no additional details or evidence to support his statement.
Allies of former Armenian presidents Levon Ter-Petrosyan, Robert Kocharyan, and Serzh Sargsyan fiercely criticised Pashinyan’s claim, outright rejecting his assertion. In response, the Prime Minister called on the former leaders to “stop hiding” behind their representatives and invited them to a live debate. The ex-presidents declined the offer. Later, Pashinyan published a third post urging them to take his proposal seriously, warning that their refusal would lead him to help the public draw its own conclusions.
Armenian experts describe Pashinyan’s statements about the negotiation process as “manipulative.” Political commentators argue that the Prime Minister is “grasping at any opportunity to deflect blame for the loss of Artsakh.”
- Opinion: What awaits ex officials of former unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in Baku prisons?
- “There are no Armenians left in NK, though Russians have taken to defending them”. Opinion about reasons
- Baku has won, Armenians are leaving NK: Opinions of all sides of the conflict
Pashinyan claims negotiation process was one-sided
The Prime Minister essentially reiterated a point he has made numerous times in parliamentary speeches and media interviews. Pashinyan insists that since 1994, the negotiation process has been a dead end for the Armenian side. According to him, the talks focused solely on “returning Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan”:
“The negotiation process had no other substance. Discussions of any alternative content were introduced in the Republic of Armenia solely for internal political purposes.”
Pashinyan also admitted what he considers a “major mistake” in 2018. He stated that after reviewing the details of the negotiation process, he was unable to acknowledge this conclusion himself and failed to inform the public of his findings.
“Moment of truth”: Proposal to debate all issues live
Nikol Pashinyan wrote on social media that he is “ready to substantiate his statements in a live debate format with the ex-presidents.”
Representatives of Levon Ter-Petrosyan, Robert Kocharyan, and Serzh Sargsyan quickly responded to the proposal, categorically rejecting it. Following their refusal, the Prime Minister reiterated his offer, this time in a video address.
“Even though the ex-presidents, directly or indirectly, have rushed to decline the debates, I urge them to reconsider. Conclusions will inevitably be drawn,” emphasised Pashinyan. He stated that he could not allow a conversation that has lasted over four years to remain unfinished.
Pashinyan described this as a “moment of truth.” The debates, he argued, would provide the people with an “ultimate and unambiguous conclusion” about what has transpired throughout the history of the Third Republic and who bears responsibility for the past 30 years. He called this an honest approach, offering those with key information the opportunity to meet face-to-face and “put an end to remote debates.”
“Let him debate alone”: Ex-presidents’ response
“It would be extremely beneficial for our state and society if Nikol Pashinyan debated, first and foremost, with himself. As a result, I am confident both sides of this debate would convincingly expose the lies of their opponent,” said Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s spokesperson, Arman Musinyan.
Bagrat Mikoyan, head of the office of the second president, Robert Kocharyan, responded to the Prime Minister’s proposal by asserting that a debate requires a clear topic:
“The surrender of sovereign territories of Artsakh and Armenia is the personal ‘achievement’ of the current Prime Minister — an indisputable historical fact and obvious to any reasonable person.
From 2018 to 2024, one person held absolute power in Armenia. That one person bears full responsibility for all events. One person declared they were negotiating from their ‘zero point’ and would discuss whatever they pleased. That one person is the current Prime Minister.”
The office of former President Serzh Sargsyan stated that the history of the negotiation process for resolving the Karabakh conflict has been “publicly and thoroughly presented a thousand times.” Therefore, they argue, “debating the obvious is meaningless,” and the person “managing” Armenia has done everything to ensure the process’s failure:
“If he is so eager to debate, we suggest he engage with the presidents of the co-chair countries [of the OSCE Minsk Group, which handled conflict resolution] — Russia, the United States, and France — who, from 2009 to 2013, issued five statements about the negotiation format and principles on which the Karabakh issue should be resolved.”
Initial reaction
At the time of publication, only comments refuting Pashinyan’s claims have surfaced. No one has expressed agreement with the Prime Minister’s position so far.
Tatul Hakobyan, an expert on the Karabakh conflict and editor-in-chief of the Alic Media Armenia platform, wrote on Facebook:
“Mr. Pashinyan,
а/ You are manipulating and misleading our people, as what you say has nothing to do with reality.
b/ You lack understanding of diplomacy, and that is understandable.
c/ What you have said is primitive disinformation unworthy of someone holding the position of Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia.”
In another post on the same topic, Hakobyan added:
“There are no Armenians left in Artsakh, and yet you call for debates on the history of negotiations. Please leave this to history.”
Opposition MP Arthur Khachatryan stated:
“Of course, Pashinyan’s statement claiming that since 1994 the negotiation process was about the ‘return’ of Artsakh to Azerbaijan is manipulative. It is just as manipulative as the claims that Armenia went to war due to a ‘not an inch of land’ policy. This is manipulation because Armenia never pursued such a policy. Propaganda with such undertones, either directly or indirectly, may have existed, but no such policy was ever conducted. The ‘not an inch of land’ policy was pursued by Azerbaijan, which from the very beginning insisted on reclaiming all territory in full.”
Political analyst Hakob Badalyan wrote on social media:
“Pashinyan’s post claiming that since 1994 the negotiation process was about ‘returning’ Artsakh to Azerbaijan is undoubtedly manipulative. It is as manipulative as the claims that Armenia went to war due to a policy of ‘not an inch of land.’ This is misleading because Armenia never pursued such a policy. There was propaganda with such undertones, directly or indirectly, but no such policy was ever conducted. The ‘not an inch of land’ policy was pursued by Azerbaijan, which from the beginning insisted on the return of all territory.”
Levon Zurabyan, Vice President of the Armenian National Congress, declared:
«Пашинян хорошо знает, что именно он является причиной уничтожения Арцаха. Как бы он ни пытался убедить людей в обратном в публичных выступлениях. Кровь наших убитых солдат на его руках. Потеря всего Арцаха тоже на его совести. Эта вина, ответственность будет преследовать его всю жизнь. И он не будет заниматься в своей жизни ничем другим, кроме попытки очистить свое имя от этой ответственности».
