Belarus president's sharp critique: Armenia's leadership at fault for Karabakh crisis Lukashenko calls out Pashinyan for mishandling westward shift

The Belarus President, Aleksandr Lukashenko, has recently made a series of pointed remarks directed at Yerevan, revealing details from private discussions with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

The President of Belarus particularly expressed confidence that the Armenian leadership is to blame for the events that took place in recent years in the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. 
Lukashenko criticized the Armenian leadership, attributing the recent turmoil in the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan solely to their actions.

In his statements, Lukashenko claimed that he had personally advised the Armenian authorities to cede the contested territories to Azerbaijan, noting that Armenia had acknowledged these areas as Azerbaijani land. Despite this recognition, Lukashenko recounted that Armenia refused to relinquish the territories, choosing instead to continue the conflict.

Belarusian President revealed that he, along with Russian President Vladimir Putin, had previously urged Pashinyan to seek a peaceful resolution to the problems between Yerevan and Baku. Lukashenko pointed out that Armenia had already recognized Karabakh as Azerbaijani territory, questioning why Pashinyan and Armenia were now expressing grievances toward Russia and Belarus.

Lukashenko also expressed doubts about Armenia's current political trajectory, criticizing the country's apparent shift toward the West and the European Union. He noted that despite Belarus' efforts to support Armenia and foster cooperation, Armenia now seems to be pursuing a path of alignment with Western interests, which Lukashenko views with skepticism.

The Belta news agency quoted Lukashenko as saying, “We tried to help Armenians in every possible way, cooperated with them as the closest people to us. But, you see, they decided to go to the West, to the EU.”
“What West? We are not against cooperation with the West, the USA, but you see what policy they pursue.”

To understand the significance of President Lukashenko’s messages to Yerevan, Caliber.Az correspondent consulted Belarusian political analysts. Here’s how they interpret Lukashenko’s remarks.

According to Kirill Koktysh, a political scientist, professor at MGIMO, and expert on Union State policy, Lukashenko’s recent comments to Yerevan come as a response to several controversial statements made by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan about Belarus roughly three months ago. Koktysh argues that these remarks, left unaddressed, would have been exploited as negative publicity against Belarus.

Koktysh believes that Lukashenko's use of public diplomacy was both timely and effective. By addressing these issues publicly, Lukashenko demonstrated that Minsk is adept in both public and behind-the-scenes diplomacy, in contrast to Yerevan’s approach. The political analyst also suggests that Lukashenko’s statements reflect a broader disconnection between Armenia's political elite and its society.

"Lukashenko's approach reflects the behavior of a politician who bases his actions on broad popular support and views the people as the ultimate authority—a stance he has consistently demonstrated. Given that direct engagement with Pashinyan proved ineffective, Lukashenko chose to address the Armenian public directly, clarifying his position and highlighting the interests he represents.

History shows that the West often strikes deals with political elites at the expense of the broader society, leaving ordinary people to bear the consequences of elite decisions. Lukashenko's address, delivered during a meeting with representatives of different nationalities living in Belarus, thus carried a multifaceted message aimed at both an external and internal audience," the pundit underlined.

Sergey Tomits, candidate of political sciences, emphasized that Lukashenko's speech carries significant implications for Yerevan.

“The fact that Belarus President disclosed details of his conversations with Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan is telling and sheds light on the underlying dynamics of Armenia's foreign policy. Lukashenko’s revelations highlight that Pashinyan, far from being a proponent of peace, has been primarily reactive to shifting circumstances. This disclosure can be seen as Lukashenko’s response to Pashinyan’s earlier criticisms, particularly those made in June. By laying bare Yerevan’s strategy, Lukashenko has effectively exposed Pashinyan's approach, which involves indirectly criticizing Minsk while placing blame on Russia—a tactic that has become evident.

In contrast to Pashinyan’s overtly critical stance, Lukashenko has conveyed his message in a more measured and diplomatic manner. He has subtly unveiled the broader context of Pashinyan's tenure and Armenia's shifting foreign policy, including its aspirations to pivot towards the West.

Lukashenko, leveraging his considerable political experience, has warned the relatively inexperienced Pashinyan of the potential pitfalls associated with changing Armenia’s political course. His approach, while gentle and advisory, underscores his superior political acumen compared to Pashinyan. Lukashenko’s nuanced message serves as a reminder to carefully consider one's actions and statements before making significant political moves,” Tomits concluded.