The deceptive pen Pashinyan has written another article

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has published a new article. It’s worth noting that recently, Pashinyan has been actively using this form of communication. By the way, a separate question arises: Why is he doing this? Why not a status on Facebook, a press statement, but specifically an article? It seems the answer lies in Pashinyan's desire to position himself as a leader who is close to the people. He rides a bicycle, goes down into the metro, and now writes articles like an ordinary person. Moreover, he seems to be reminding people of his journalistic background, which again makes him "closer to the people." But let’s turn to the substance.

In his new article, Pashinyan opposes Azerbaijan's position regarding the need to provide Baku with a land corridor to Nakhchivan. He starts with the following argument: “Firstly, it should be emphasized that Armenia has no unilateral obligations. Both sides have undertaken to open all transport and economic routes to each other. Today, no transport or economic routes of Azerbaijan is open to Armenia or to those passing through Armenia, no road, no railway, no pipeline, no electricity line, no cable.”

Well, it's quite simple here, and there’s no need to complicate matters, let alone write articles. Point 9 of the Trilateral Statement speaks about the unblocking of all communications in the region. Furthermore, the same point mentions the necessity of opening a road from the western regions of Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan. In the context of this statement, the provision on unblocking all communications is general, while the provision on opening the road to Nakhchivan is specific. From legal theory, we know that a special law prevails over a general one. Therefore, no communications can be unblocked until Armenia provides Baku with an unobstructed route to Nakhchivan.

Next, Pashinyan reminds us of his allegedly constructive proposal, which Baku rejected: “All roads of Armenia are open to Azerbaijan. Back in 2022, the Government of Armenia circulated a draft decree on opening three border points on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, which would enable Azerbaijan’s cargo and passenger vehicles to enter the territory of Armenia and to travel, for example, to Nakhchivan and Turkiye. These decrees were not adopted only because of Azerbaijan’s declinatory position and can be adopted by the Armenian government within a week or two. Of course, there are no infrastructures for access to Nakhchivan, and they need to be built, but this too is something that can be done rather quickly.”

So, Pashinyan is first trying to prove that he has no obligations, and then, as a gesture of goodwill, offers some alternative routes to the Zangezur Corridor. We’ve already discussed the issue of obligations. Now, let’s look at the alternative routes Pashinyan proposes. They pass through the northeastern part of Armenia and are part of the same “Crossroads of Peace” project that Pashinyan proudly waves at every event. The border checkpoints he refers to are located on the northern sections of the border with Azerbaijan.

This position is far from constructive and justifiably causes frustration. The thing is, any road should meet the principles of convenience and logistical feasibility. Proposing a road that crosses all of Armenia means killing the project from the start. First, it takes longer. Second, the risks related to the security of the routes increase. Third, it’s economically impractical. Building a road in the mountains is much harder than in flat areas, and I’m not even talking about the fact that such a road will be susceptible to various climate-related issues, such as snow slides or ice.

"But right now, purely in terms of the readiness of the physical infrastructure, for example, cargo trucks can enter the territory of the Republic of Armenia via the Lachin-Kornidzor section through the Kornidzor checkpoint, travel on our roads to the Armenia-Turkiye border, and enter Turkiye through the Margara checkpoint. The same goes for the opposite direction. The physical infrastructure necessary for such transit cargo transportation is ready now, and what remains to be done is to adopt a de-jure decision. We are ready to adopt such a decision, provided there is interest from Azerbaijan and Turkiye," continues Pashinyan, indulging in his cheap trickery, presenting another inconvenient road as a favor simply because, unlike the previously proposed routes, it is already built.

In general, by making such proposals, Pashinyan is repeating his trick of proposing a parity in armaments. In other words, he is engaging in deceit. Just as there cannot be any military parity between a former aggressor and a country that was attacked and punished the aggressor, so too can there be no talk of any other route from Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan, except the most convenient and shortest — through Zangezur.

Pashinyan should remember the fate of Nazi Germany, which was never asked for anything, occupied, and initially divided into four sectors, later split into two parts. It was only after more than four decades of repentance that the Germans were allowed to reunify and regain full sovereignty. In essence, Armenia is no different from Nazi Germany. The same racist ideology, which has yet to be fully eradicated from the consciousness of society.

Unlike Nazi Germany, Armenia was simply fortunate that the world powers decided to support this "small-scale nationalism" — after all, it was directed against the Turks and Muslims. The nastiness of the situation lies in the fact that these powers effectively supported the occupation of Azerbaijani territories. The only thing they couldn’t do was recognize the occupation on a legislative level, which allowed Azerbaijan, by exercising both legal rights and force, to reclaim its own. Now, the wounded patrons of Armenia are teaching it not to "give up ground." But the positions and resources of these patrons can change, while Azerbaijan is always close...

In his article, Pashinyan also engages in some vague and convoluted reasoning about the willingness to provide a railway corridor for cargo transit through Meghri on the same terms as with Iran.

The comparison with Iran is inappropriate. Azerbaijan did not fight with Iran and did not defeat it. Azerbaijan fought with Armenia and defeated Armenia. Relations with Iran are governed by bilateral agreements. Relations with Armenia, in the absence of a peace treaty, are regulated by an act of capitulation, which, in essence, is the Trilateral Statement. Armenia is the defeated side and should behave accordingly. The support of its patrons does not change the essence of the matter. Everything has a price, especially thirty years of occupation. By the way, we are not asking for much — just to open the road to Nakhchivan through Zangezur, which, by the way, was once gifted to Armenia at the expense of the Azerbaijani lands.

Moreover, it was Baku that demonstrated an act of goodwill by excluding the issue of communications from the peace treaty, meaning it did not create tension on this front and left room and time for the issue to be discussed and a solution to mature. Instead of appreciating this gesture, the Armenian prime minister is artificially trying to create the appearance of a major problem. He begins his article by saying: "The issue of regional connectivity is the one most frequently exploited or escalated by Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan says that Armenia is not fulfilling its obligations." As noted above, Azerbaijan is by no means escalating this issue, but it is worth mentioning that thoughts tend to materialize. If Pashinyan wants bigger problems, he can certainly get them.