Frightened Pashinyan made verbal promise to Aliyev in front of Putin... New details of November 9, 2020 night

The columnist of the Armenian pro-governmental Ali-qmedia.am Tatul Hakobyan, who is believed to be close to the ruling political elite in Yerevan, has revealed yet another sensational detail regarding the post-conflict settlement.

According to Caliber.Az, Hakobyan writes that he is forced to disclose one episode out of many discussions, which is the reason for numerous manipulations.

"What is it about? Former Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan wrote in a recent article that during the adoption of the trilateral statement of November 9, 2020, it was Aliyev who dictated the terms.

'By entering Shusha, he had the opportunity to occupy the whole of Karabakh in a few hours. It is not difficult to understand that in these positions Aliyev put his maximum demands on the table that night: Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, a corridor in Zangazur, and a resolving of delimitation issue in favour of Azerbaijan, including the enclaves. In a negotiation process, even in the weakest positions, the parties are given the opportunity to save face. I assume these three issues were excluded from the ceasefire statement, but a verbal agreement was reached to which Putin was a witness and guarantor,' Oskanyan writes.

The former foreign minister, who is one of the loyal representatives of the second president, Robert Kocharyan, continues: 'Now, when the implementation of these agreements is delayed, Aliyev has resorted to forceful methods. Assuming a reasonable assumption, Pashinyan has no room for manoeuvre in this situation, and Russia's silence becomes, if not justified, at least explainable. Putin's hands are tied not only by his weakened geopolitical position but also by the fact that he witnessed the verbal promise made by Pashinyan on November 9. The emergence of a new negotiator, i.e. a new leader of the country, therefore becomes an urgent necessity.'

This article was published by Oskanian on September 17, a few days after the clashes on the border that left 207 people dead, missing, and many wounded. Let's leave aside the understandable positive attitude of the Armenian Foreign Minister towards Putin and Russia for 10 years and the desire for justification. Oskanyan accuses Nikol Pashinyan without facts, that the defeated prime minister promised Aliyev that Karabakh would be part of Azerbaijan, a corridor would be opened in Zangazur, and the border delimited in favour of Azerbaijan, including the enclaves.

During my meeting with Pashinyan I asked a direct question: was there a verbal promise to give a corridor to Azerbaijan on the night of November 9? The Prime Minister replied that Azerbaijan was demanding the opening of the Meghri corridor, and Armenia was rejecting it.

Where does Vardan Oskanyan's "reasonable assumption" come from that Pashinyan made a verbal promise to provide a corridor to Azerbaijan 'with his hands tied' in the presence of Putin? Undoubtedly, the former foreign minister has reliable connections in diplomatic circles. And if Oskanyan's claims are close to reality, this could mean:

a) Pashinyan made a verbal promise on the terrible night of November 9, but then tried to backtrack, realising what new trouble the corridor could bring for Armenia;

b) Pashinyan is bringing Armenia to a point where most people will accept the corridor and consider its provision a lesser of two evils.

During three closed-door meetings with the Prime Minister, and this will be confirmed by all present, both Pashinyan personally and members of his team were unequivocal that there would be no corridor in any case, even if Azerbaijan resorted to new strikes and military action. There will be no corridor under any circumstances, and for Armenia, this is a red line. Obviously, the September 13-14 attack was also aimed at winning the corridor.

Finally, in 2001, Yerevan made a written promise to Baku to open the Meghri corridor. But this is a matter of the past, to which we will return in one of our next columns with some consultation documents," Hakobyan writes.