The rights and security of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh should be ensured and there should be guarantees for this, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said in an interview with Italian La Repubblica.
“If the peace treaty does not include guarantees of that, it would be devoid of any sense,” the Prime Minister said.
Below is the fill text of the interview:
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – Prime Minister Pashinyan, thank you for this meeting and interview. We are seeing a very difficult situation for the population of Nagorno Karabakh, we see that the Lachin Corridor is still closed for importing goods, creating very difficult situation, even starvation for Armenian living in Nagorno Karabakh. However, we see that Armenians living in Nagorno Karabakh are able to leave the region in the direction of Armenia. You recently stated that you recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, that includes Nagorno Karabakh. Are these movements of Armenian going out from Nagorno Karabakh the start of the end of the Armenian presence in this region?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – At this point of time, our situation is as follows, a certain number of people who have medical conditions are moved to Armenia with the help of the Red Cross, and a certain number of citizens, mostly students, who study in Armenia, have moved to Armenia through the Russian peacekeepers.
In general terms, there is a more serious problem preceding it. Here is the serious problem. Because of the closure of the Lachin Corridor, about 5 thousand of the population of Nagorno Karabakh cannot return there and about 30 thousand inhabitants also cannot return since December. This group includes individuals who during the war of 2020 left their settlements because they ended up under Azerbaijani control. But the problem of those people should have been resolved. The-jure it is resolved, de-facto it isn’t, because clause 7 of the November 9, 2020 tripartite statement stipulates that internally displaced and refugees shall return to the territory of Nagorno Karabakh and adjacent regions. This category includes almost several dozen thousands of Armenians who are de-facto deprived of this opportunity.
In general terms, we never concealed and I talked about this at the recent Cabinet meeting, that by our observation and assessment the purpose of Azerbaijan is to rid Nagorno Karabakh of Armenians. This is the reason why they have created an artificial humanitarian crisis by unlawfully blocking the Lachin Corridor. Essentially, the Lachin Corridor issue should have been resolved, you may know that the International Court of Justice has made a binding legal ruling imposing it upon Azerbaijan to ensure bilateral traffic from Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and from Armenia to Nagorno Karabakh for citizens, vehicles and freight. But this ruling was passed on February 22, 2023 and was reaffirmed on July 6, 2023 is not being followed. This comes to prove following the humanitarian crisis in Nagorno Karabakh that, if we can say so, this is a crisis of the international legal order, if a binding ruling of the ICJ is not being implemented, such a conclusion may follow.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – The viability of the Lachin Corridor should be guaranteed by Russian peacekeepers. We know that this is not happening, that Azerbaijan is de-facto controlling this corridor. We know how it happened, fake environmentalists and so on. But can you explain us the political process that brought Russia not to intervene to respect the agreement of November 9, 2020 that states that Russia should guarantee the movement through Lachin Corridor?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I cannot make evaluation in this respect, except for agreeing with the formulation, that in fact, yes, it turns out that the peacekeepers of the Russian Federation failed to implement the mission they have assumed under the tripartite statement and this is a matter of serious concern. Essentially, one of the main objectives of the presence of the Russian peacekeepers in Nagorno Karabakh was to ensure the security of the civilian population. In this case security involves the freedom of movement, and this right is not implemented, which is a matter of concern.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – You are taking part in the trilateral dialogues in Brussels with Charles Michel and Azerbaijani president Aliyev. You are trying to negotiate a peace agreement. At which point are you in the peace talks, how close is peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – It’s very difficult to come up with an assessment. Initially, we had good progress for the reason that we focused predominantly on items that controversies about which may not have been so large, but the more we agreed articles, the list of those not agreed upon includes the most difficult ones. But on the other hand, the position and approach of our Government is that the peace agenda should be pushed forward and we are trying to do everything to attain real progress towards signing a peace treaty with Azerbaijan. Here not only the process that takes place around the negotiating table, but also the processes that take place publicly.
Particularly, we reached an agreement with Azerbaijan recently in Brussels, and before that we had an agreement in Prague, which stated that Armenia and Azerbaijan by mutually recognizing each other’s territorial integrity, should sign a peace treaty. This happened in Prague, where we agreed to make a reference to the Alma-Ata Declaration, which establishes the following: the constituent republics of the Soviet Union become independent states after the collapse of the Soviet Union within the administrative borders of the Soviet republics that existing at that point of time. After this, the need to make it more specific emerged, the dimensions of the states of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and we in Brussels reached an agreement that Armenia recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan with a territory of 86 thousand 600 square kilometers, and Azerbaijan recognizes the territorial integrity of Armenia with a territory of 29 thousand 800 square kilometers. In this respect, it is important that this agreement has not been publicly reaffirmed by the Azerbaijani leadership so far. What I mean is that the public accompaniment of the peace treaty is also very important for the process in general.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – Do you think that giving up the control of Nagorno Karabakh to Azerbaijan is the price to pay for peace?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – In Nagorno Karabakh the situation has always been under the control of the authorities of Nagorno Karabakh. In any case, that has been the case since 2018, and today as well, in Nagorno Karabakh the situation is controlled by the elected representatives of Nagorno Karabakh. There is also the presence of the Russian peacekeepers, so we are talking about something completely different. If Armenia and Azerbaijan fail to recognize each other’s territorial integrity on the basis of the Alama-Ata declaration, this will mean that there will never be peace.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – But the position of Azerbaijan is very clear. They consider Nagorno Karabakh being part of Azerbaijan. They even claim that some parts of Armenia are part of Azerbaijan, which they are also occupying. According to you, what guarantees are there that if Nagorno Karabakh goes under the control of Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan will stop its territorial claims from the Republic of Armenia?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Our position is clear; the rights and security of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh should be ensured and there should be guarantees for this. As for the other issue about the recognition of territorial integrity of Armenia and Azerbaijan, if the peace treaty does not include guarantees of that, it would be devoid of any sense. And that is the reason why we want to have such a peace treaty that would offer the guarantees you mentioned. On the other hand, I would like to emphasize once again that the rights and security of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh should be addressed within the framework of an international mechanism, which is also of utmost importance for peace in our region.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – So what do you think about the position of the West and the EU towards Armenia and towards the situation in Nagorno Karabakh, because you say that the solution is only possible in the presence of international guarantees. What role should the European Union play?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Of course, we see in the recent period a certain increase in the attention on the part of the EU and the Western political circle, but as long as the issues raised by me are not addressed, this means that the attention is not sufficient, which does not mean that I believe that it’s the Western countries that should resolve the current situation, not at all. This is first and foremost the issue of Armenia, Azerbaijan, as well as Nagorno Karabakh. But on the other hand, our international partners should exercise effective efforts to make peace in the region possible. Of course, we are talking about those partners, who have an earnest interest and do wish for this peace.
But the characteristic of the contemporary world is that the world is small and even minor events in one region may result in global consequences. In this respect, the establishment of peace and stability in our region is also important from the perspective of global security.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – We know that Azerbaijan is an important partner of many countries in Europe, and especially for Italy, when it comes to the importation of natural resources. Azerbaijan is also an important partner for Russia, and it’s becoming more important especially after the start of the Ukrainian war. Do you think that Armenia is paying for the consequences of the Ukrainian war, that generated such a strong link between Azerbaijan both with Europe and Russia.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I already said that the world is very small. Not only Armenia, there are many countries are feeling not only the immediate impact, but also the impact of events that are quite remote from them. In this respect, any event has an impact on the rest. As to what extent, that’s another issue. I am of the opinion that the processes which resulted in the escalation of the confrontation in Ukraine, those processes had in reality started much earlier, in 2020, in this region.
There is serious and deep causality here, which may not be visible at first sight, even at second and third sight. It may become visible perhaps for those who research that situation or are well informed. I mean the events in Ukraine affect everyone today, in practice it would be difficult to find a country not affected by the events in Ukraine.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – According to the Collective Security Treaty Organization, Russia should intervene in case Armenia is attacked by a foreign state, something that happened in the recent years and there are still parts of the Republic of Armenia under occupation. How do you explain this behavior of Russia not intervening and not fulfilling its duties within the organization?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I at least can say that the situation you described in terms of Collective Security Treaty’s functionality and treaty-worthiness attests to the existence of a crisis. I do not think this is the problem of only Armenia, it is the problem of the entire CSTO.
As for possible explanation, you know, that could be different explanations for that, but at least from our prespective, the explanations do not matter. The fact that the Armenian public is deeply disappointed and continues to be disappointed by the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s actions is obvious. And this is also the reason why Armenia did not ratify a number of agreements during the CSTO fall summit held in Yerevan in 2022, and since decisions are made by consensus in the CSTO, no decision was adopted then.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – It’s all true what you are saying that the problems related to the Ukrainian war are larger and not affecting only Armenia, also that the problems in implementing the duties of the CSTO are larger, but at the end of the day it’s mostly Armenia that pays for this. How is it possible to stop this, what can be a concrete solution to defend the rights of Armenia and the agreements that Armenia has signed?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Our perception of managing the situation you described is as follows: in general I think that in any case and for all countries security guarantees can be ensured only by peace. This is the reason why we deem important to implement the peace agenda and to sign a peace treaty with Azerbaijan, and also in this region to form a favorable environment around Armenia, which is not an easy task, including because of the factors you referred to.
But I would like to speak again about our perception of peace architecture in the region. That perception has two premises, or two plus one maybe. The first is the implementation of the agreement of Armenia and Azerbaijan recognizing each other’s territorial integrity. Secondly, the righs and security of Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh should be addressed in the format of Baku-Stepanakert dialogue within the framework of international mechanisms, and thirdly, signing such a peace treaty, which will include mechanisms which will make it possible to truly guarantee peace.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – The fact is that by recognizing the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, the international community is going to recognize the sovereignty of Azerbaijan on Nagorno Karabakh. What guarantees are there that the inhabitants of Nagorno Karabakh will be treated as normal citizens by Azerbaijan, because the statements of Azerbaijan against Armenians raise concerns about this?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – If we had those guarantees, we would not be talking about the need to address security and the rights of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh. If we raise this issue and we are talking today about humanitarian crisis in Nagorno Karabakh in the conditions of unlawful blockade of the Lachin Corridor, it means that those guarantees are absent. The entire process, both the absence of those guarantees and the problem that you just referred to are the reasons behind the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, which at the same time, impede the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict.
Exactly the absence of these guarantees, which are proved by the current situation, is the reason that Azerbaijan is carrying out ethnic cleansing in Nagorno Karabakh, and this is the reason we say dialogue between Baku and Stepanakert within international mechanisms is needed. Why? Exactly because of what you said, the absence of the guarantees. We believe that the issues of rights and security of Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh, whatever is agreed in the sidelines of this dialogue, should have certain mechanisms of guarantees, including international ones. That’s just the issue. Had the guarantees you mentioned exist, there would be no conflict. It’s exactly the absence of the guarantees you referred that cause the current situation, the situation of yesterday, the situation of 5 years ago, the situation of 10 years ago, the situation of 20 years ago.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – One of the main problems is that Azerbaijan is way stronger militarily than Armenia, we saw it also in the last war in 2020. Your government is trying to make steps in order to normalize its relations with Turkey. Is the normalization of relations with Turkey a way to control, to limit the actions of Baku through Ankara?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – We do not link and do not want to link Armenian-Turkish relations with Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, although it should be said that Azerbaijan and Turkey do want to link this, and essentially push forward issue continually. But generally, if we are talking about security, any country can speak about security if they have regulated relations with their immediate neighbors. And this is true not only for countries that are not military superpowers, this applies to any case as a formula.
There have been many such examples in history. It seems that if any country is stronger militarily, they may no longer think about regulating their relations either with neighbors or in general. But there are also ample examples in history, including current history, that come to demonstrate that seeming military might does not mean impregnability․ Therefore, I think this is something that everyone should be interested in, all countries in the region. It’s another thing that understandably there are interests that make it difficult to attain that objective. That is exactly the difficulty in political leadership to make things possible that sometimes seem impossible. And this is very difficult, had not been it difficult, it would have been solved long ago.
As for Armenia-Turkey relations, we consider it important for us to regulate relations with Turkey. It’s a very important issue for Armenia and I have the impression based on the results of my recent visit to Ankara and my contacts with the president of Turkey that it is also very important for Turkey to regulate its relations with Armenia. I believe that there are opportunities here as well. There are also of course complexities, and these complexities include the current state and quality of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – You are considering the Armenian-Turkish chapter separated from Nagorno Karabakh issue. But there is another problem, the problem that Azerbaijan is controlling certain territories of the Republic of Armenia. Is the normalization of relations with Turkey a way to guarantee the territorial integrity of Armenia against the pressures of Baku, and I am not talking about Nagorno Karabakh here.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – It’s understandable that the relations between Armenia and Turkey, the state of their regulation will essentially diminish tensions in the South Caucasus region. Of course, all that is interrelated. In general terms, what’s the ideology we are trying to implement, which is not easy. I am often asked if there are any guarantees that this ideology will turn into reality.
Recently in one of my interviews, when the journalist asked me, and I understand that question, because it’s a widespread perception not only beyond our region, but also exactly in our region, in our country, because we are accustomed to perceiving the global political map between East and West, or West and Russia. So the journalist asked how we are positioned being located between the West and Russia. I responded that in reality it’s a wrong impression that we are in the middle of the West and Russia. We are in the middle of Georgia, Turkey, Iran and Azerbaijan. And consequently, the security interests of our state impose upon us to establish stable and regulated relations first and foremost with our immediate neighbors, of course, not diminishing in any way the role, impact and significance and importance of geopolitical centers for this region and of course for our country as well.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – I would like to quote your recent statement on the occasion of Armenia’s independence day, when you said that “The agenda of peace adopted by our government is an agenda of independence, because we can have independence when we have peace. As long as we do not have peace, the ghost of the USSR will haunt our skies, the skies of our region”. Does it mean that what you are doing now, trying to reach peace is also a way to become more independent from Moscow?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – What does it mean to be independent? Being independent means that you are less dependent for example in the security sphere, or it means security policies should be diversified.
I will illustrate with a very specific example, which maybe in this context is not referred to, but we all, also the citizens of Armenia. I assume are aware of it, everyone knows, but when it is spoken, it assumes another value.
Armenia’s security architecture 99,999% was linked to Russia, including in the logic of procurement of arms and ammunition, but today we see that Russia itself is in need of weapons, arms and ammunition and in this situation it’s understandable that even if it wishes so, the Russian Federation cannot meet Armenia’s security needs. This example should demonstrate to us that dependance of linkage in security matters from just one partner is just a strategic mistake. And after tasting the bitter fruits of this error post-factum, we are taking feeble attempts to diversify our security policy, including casting a different glance on own region, because it’s one thing when we in our region live under continuous confrontational logic with our neighbors, but say ok, someone will care for our security. But when in practice it comes to this someone to take care of our security, it turns out that this someone either does not want to or cannot ensure our security. These are realities which we have to confront with.
Yes, we confront very difficult realities both psychologically, ideologically, historically and in terms of worldview. If you do not pass through these realities in the right way, it will mean losing independence. This is what I had in mind in the message I you mentioned. I have pondered long about if this should be spoken about publicly or not. But I have not seen the positive effect of not speaking about it publicly.
It’s just the opposite, I see that talking about it is very painful, but without talking about this, we could really lose our independence. Of course, noy only speaking, because it won’t work out only by speaking, but it is also necessary to speak. Let me tell you one thing: I think reflection is an important pastime, important instrument and formula, that we need to continually look inside, into ourselves. If the questions raised get the same answers we had before those questions were raised, then it’s ok, we did everything right and we are doing everything right. But if it were to turn out that the old question in this new situation has a new answer, this is a situation we have to face․
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – It’s very important to understand the political reason for Russia to leave the control of the Lachin Corridor to Azerbaijan. When you spoke with your Russian partners, you could see that the Russian peacekeepers did not fulfill their duties, what did they tell you? Didn’t you ask them why they are enabling Azerbaijan to de-facto control this area? What is happening? Why are not you intervening?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Of course, we talk about these issues with our Russian partners. But irrespective of these discussions, we of course have our own hypothesis. When we talk about this hypothesis, also several events that took place in Russia push us to draw historical parallels.
Our region has already witnessed such a situation. In fact, for quite a long time the Russian Federation is present in our region, the South Caucasus. But we have observed situations when overnight, within a month or within a year the Russian Federation just got up and left South Caucasus.
Our Russian colleagues talk a lot about that Armenia’s western partners, western countries work with Armenia or push the government of Armenia in order the Armenian government takes measures, pursuing the objective to push out Russia from this region.
But when we talk with our Russian partners, sometimes we express our opinion and our assessment that it’s the opposite, we see that Russia by virtue of a number of steps it takes or fails to take, itself leaves the region. As for the reasons, we are unaware. We can of course make interpretations, but I cannot make any statement. I can propose hypothesis, but I will refrain from that now. It’s understandable that the issue you refer to is a matter of great concern and interest for us and there is nothing new here. But there are processes which of course lead us to believe that all this scenarios may repeat, we just can wake up one day and see that Russia is not here.
I have to agree with your formulation that the Lachin Corridor that should have been under the control of the Russian peacekeepers is not under the control of the Russian peacekeepers. There may be two reasons, either the Russian Federation cannot maintain control over the Lachin Corridor, or it just doesn’t want to. Both are problematic from our perspective.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – What do you think, is it because they don’t want or because they cannot?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I believe sometimes they cannot, sometimes they do not want.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – And what’s the reason they don’t want?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – There are different reasons, but I would not like to speak about that. Of course, I have my own versions, my own perception, my own hypothesis, and I have publicly expressed part of them. Of course, in those public statements the causative relationships may not have been very visible, but a careful observer will see those causative links.
Let’s see what makes this situation dangerous for Armenia. We have not been able to make use of its toolkit. Armenia is a member of the CSTO, Armenia is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, Armenia has a strategic partnership treaty with the Russian Federation, and all these leads all western countries or experts to qualify Armenia as a pro-Russian country. On the other hand, many circles in Russia consider Armenia or its government, and since the government was formed by the vote of the majority of the people, pro-Western. And here the biggest problem of our current position is as follows: if being pro-Russian could have some potential benefits, or if being pro-Western could have some advantages, Armenia does not take advantage of the benefits of being pro-Russian, because in Russia they do not consider Armenia enough pro-Russian, for example for the reason that Armenia in their opinion does not provide enough assistance to them in the Ukrainian issue. On the other hand, Armenia cannot take advantage of the potential benefits of being pro-Western, because in the West they consider Armenia not to be sufficiently pro-Western, because for example, from their perspective, Armenia does not sufficiently oppose Russia in the Ukrainian issue. This is exactly the hazard of our situation.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – And when it comes to the areas that Azerbaijan controls today in Armenia and we see more and more claims of Azerbaijan to get over the control a corridor, which the call “Zangezur” corridor from Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan, is this corridor also a part of the peace talks?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – See you are saying “Is this corridor…”, what “corridor”?
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – The corridor they are demanding.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – Let’s start with the following, they have no right to expect a corridor. If we are talking about the November 9, 2020 tripartite statement, the word “corridor” is used there with respect to one case, and that’s the Lachin Corridor, which is not a road…
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – But they use that term.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – This is exactly that. This comes to demonstrate the aggressiveness and unlawfulness of Azerbaijan’s policy. But see, you are also using that term.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – I am referring to what they are saying.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – You disseminate their statements. Therefore, they are attaining their goals through you among others.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – No, no, no…
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I am not blaming you. I just want us to understand the situation properly. When I say you, I don’t mean personally you, but including you. Does anyone ask what is this word that you are using, where did it come from, where is it written, can you show it?
When I say Lachin Corridor, I can point my figure on a paper signed by the president of Azerbaijan. And I don’t even need to show it, you can search and find it within a minute. So do you or other journalists ask Azerbaijan where they got this word from, who invented that, what right they have to make such a statement or demand a corridor from Armenia? Everything starts from here.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – This is exactly the point, because it’s you who is negotiating with Azerbaijan and they are using another vocabulary…
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – If you know in Moscow, at the summit of the Eurasian Economic Union, the president of Azerbaijan made an attempt to use such a narrative, but whenever he used it, I responded and reacted to demonstrate this invented narrative aimed at justifying aggressiveness. I repeat, when I say Lachin Corridor, I have a paper to back it signed by the Azerbaijani president and myself. There is no other document in the world or history that assumes that there should be a corridor in the territory of Armenia in the logic which Azrbaijan is attempting to bring forward. The opposite it backed by a document. The lawfulness and appropriateness of this term (Lachin Corridor – edited) has been affirmed and recorded by the International Court of Justice.
Azerbaijan claims there is no Nagorno Karabakh, it does not exist, but I can show a document signed by the Azerbaijani president, which states that Nagorno Karabakh exists, it has its territory and there is a line of contact, that is a perimeter. Nagorno Karabakh also has the Lachin Corridor, 5 km wide, which takes care of the communication of Nagorno Karabakh with Armenia. This is a very serious discourse, and it is very important not to use non-serious terms and vocabulary in this very important discourse.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – Taking into account what’s happening now, taking into account what you call aggressiveness of Azerbaijan, and this maybe the most central part, what gurantees do you have that Azerbaijan will ever respect the agreements that they discuss and negotiate with you?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I already mentioned thata s soon as the gurantees are put in place, that document will be signed at that very same moment. As long as those gurantees do not exist, the signing of that document, and I have said it publicly as well, our task is not signing a document entitled a peace treaty, our task is to signa peace treaty which will bring peace on the ground. That’s what we are negotiating. Why is not the document signed yet? Practically now, in the peace negotiations we have got to the point which pertains to gurantees. That is which could be the gurantees that in the wake of the signing of this paper will result in peace in practice. As soon as there is an accord around these gurantees, that means the agreement can be considered accomplished.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – And one very last question. According to you, also personally, because you are the Prime Minister of Armenia, but you are also the person who is participating in these discussions. Which could be the gurantees that you could accept in order to implement the discussions, agreements. Concretely, with which gurantees would these agreements be acceptable?
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I would paraphrase your question. What should those gurantees serve. They should ensure first and foremost, from our perspective, and Azerbaijan maybe from its perspective, the territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Armenia and secondly, the launch of a reliable dialogue in the sidelines of an international mechanism aimed at addressing the rights and security of Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh.
That is, there are two issues I referred to when introducing our perception of peace architecture. First, the agreement that Armenia and Azerbaijan recognize each other’s territorial integrity, 29.800 square kilometers and 86.600 square kilometers, and concurrently, as a stand-alone item, the issue of addressing the rights and security of the Armenian of Nagorno Karabakh. The gurantees should evolve around this.
La Repubblica journalist Luca Steinmann – Thank you for the interview.
Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – I am thankful.