Kocharyan’s call to preserve OSCE Minsk Group: A hidden agenda for future revanchism? Expert insights

Recently, Armenia's second president, Robert Kocharyan, made a statement regarding the OSCE Minsk Group. "We are now dealing with a rapidly changing world. No one can say for certain what will happen, but the general direction is roughly clear. Against this backdrop, taking steps that would lead to irreversible losses in the negotiation process is pure idiocy. At all costs, the Minsk Group must be preserved. If the OSCE Minsk Group is dissolved now, it will be extremely difficult to create a new international format. What harm does the Minsk Group do in the current situation? It exists; it’s a negotiating format, so let it remain. If another effective format is established, then only after that should it be dissolved," Kocharyan stated.

So, a person who was involved in inciting separatism in Karabakh, a former illegal "president" of the self-proclaimed "Nagorno Karabakh Republic," and who condoned the occupation of this region of Azerbaijan by the Armenian armed forces, is now calling for the preservation of the powers of an international format that was supposed to resolve the Karabakh conflict peacefully. However, as is well known, the Minsk Group was unable to carry out this task, and as a result, Azerbaijan restored its territorial integrity by other means. After the 44-day war, Baku immediately called for the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, as it no longer had any functional value – the Karabakh conflict had been resolved.

Gradually, Armenia's leadership came to a similar conclusion. Last year, Nikol Pashinyan's government officially acknowledged that continuing the existing format was unnecessary, as the issue now focused solely on reaching a peace agreement. Substantive negotiations are being carried out directly between Baku and Yerevan, without intermediaries.

So, what are Kocharyan and the forces behind him dissatisfied with? Is this not an attempt to preserve the possibility of external influence on both Azerbaijan and Armenia by any means, and to keep the already settled Karabakh issue in a state of "unresolved"? What objectives might Kocharian be pursuing in this context?

Prominent analysts have shared their opinions on these issues with Caliber.Az.

As stated by Russian expert, co-chairman of the political party Democratic Choice, and member of the board of the Liberal Mission Foundation (Moscow), Sergey Zhavoronkov, he believes that Kocharyan's words are meaningless.

"In the USSR, there was a saying: 'If Yevtushenko is against collective farms, then I am for them.' It was attributed to another poet — Brodsky. It's the same with Kocharyan. He’s in the opposition, and it’s difficult for him to say, 'Well done, Pashinyan, you’re saying it right.' The entire opposition of Armenia exploits the theme that Pashinyan supposedly 'gave up' Karabakh. To which he rightly responds, 'What, are you suggesting we restart the war? Well, then tell us your plan for victory.' In response, the opposition utters loud generalities like 'it should have been done differently,' but doesn't specify how exactly," the politician recalled.

However, he noted, Pashinyan has an absolute majority in parliament, so Kocharian can say whatever he wants, but it doesn’t have any influence on the situation.

"I suppose he would like to present himself to Putin as some kind of negotiator in the context of the prolonged signing of the agreement, leveraging old good relations. But Putin should understand that Kocharyan, who is considered a terrorist in Azerbaijan, is unlikely to be a viable negotiator," Zhavoronkov emphasized.

The director of the Center for Analysis of International Relations, diplomat Farid Shafiyev (Baku), in turn, said that, to some extent, Pashinyan also followed this tactic for a time, or rather, perhaps even a strategy, of the need to preserve the OSCE Minsk Group, but later gradually began to distance himself from it.

"The thing is, within the Armenian political environment, both in the opposition and in the ruling team, there has been and still is the idea that, yes, we lost the war, but even after the voluntary departure of Armenians from Karabakh in September 2023, it is formally necessary to preserve in Armenia's constitution the preamble regarding claims to the Karabakh region of Azerbaijan. The same goes for the Minsk Group — even if it only exists on paper now, it should remain at least in this form. And this is done with the aim of possibly revisiting the issue in 5, 10, or 15 years.

So, in their view, these are legal grounds. Like, since the OSCE Minsk Group exists, it means the conflict (at least within the framework of the OSCE) is not resolved. And, as I mentioned, the same goes for their constitution regarding Karabakh," the diplomat explained.

Pashinyan simply realized that within the framework of negotiations, Azerbaijan won't agree to any peace treaty if these issues are not resolved, he noted.

"It is known that the provision on the dissolution of the Minsk Group is already included in the draft peace agreement. Armenia’s constitution is not mentioned in the draft agreement, but one of our fundamental demands remains on the agenda — to introduce amendments that would mean renouncing territorial claims against Azerbaijan.

Therefore, what Kocharyan is saying is a desire to leave 'reserves,' in order to return to illegal claims at a convenient opportunity. It’s a pure strategy of revanche," concluded Shafiyev.