ArmInfo. There can be no question of any return of territories - this is 100%. The Spokesman for the NKR head David Babayan said this in an interview with ArmInfo correspondent in response to the statement by the US Ambassador to RA Richard Mills regarding "the return of the occupied territories."
According to him, the statements of Mills must be divided into two components. First, according to Babayan, most likely, this statement is personal in nature, since there is no other explanation for this. According to the Spokesman for the head of Artsakh, such precedents have already been, for example, Matthew Bryza (former US ambassador to Azerbaijan). "He also needs to live somehow. There are various scenarios for his further employment," he said.
Secondly, according to Spokesman for President of Artsakh, this statement by Mills is very strange. He recalled that it was repeatedly stated and emphasized that the co-chair countries are not judges, there is no coercion to incline one or another solution, they only carry out the mediation mission. "Who decides that the settlement does not alternative and involves the return of territories? And why, for example, the US Ambassador to Azerbaijan does not make such a statement? The emphasis of our approaches and positions cannot be forced on one or another settlement option. I want to stress once again that we do not have "occupied territories", because initially we did not raise the question of the seizure of any territories, we had one goal- to reunite with mother-Armenia, "he said, and in this context he reminded that the Nagorno- Karabakh Republic was formed as a result of union of the North Artsakh and the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region.
Babayan once again emphasized that today there can be no talk of territories, there can only be a question of borders, which in itself is a broader concept. "If you want to resolve the issue of borders, no one will hinder you. But I would like to emphasize once again that there can be no return to the past, either in terms of status or in terms of territories. This is a question of the safety of people living in this territory ", Babayan said. To clarify, does this mean that the official Stepanakert opposes the Madrid principles, the Spokesman for the President of Artsakh stated that the NKR is not a participant in these processes, although it was repeatedly stressed that without its participation a complete and comprehensive solution to the conflict is impossible. "We should be involved in all stages of the negotiations. Only in this case can we give a political and legal assessment to the processes around the settlement. And what does this ambiguous formula for the ambassador" land for peace "mean, only peace can be in exchange for peace, and no more. There can be no question of the return of territories, this is100%. It is a question of our security. To denude our defense in exchange for the empty promises of terrorists - are we that crazy? ", Babayan concluded. To recall, Richard Mills who is terminating his diplomatic mission in Armenia in an interview to EVN touching upon the Karabakh settlement made a remarkable statement. In particular, touching the options to settle the conflict the U.S. Ambassador focused on the need to return ''occupied territories''. Although he's hoping that the transition will generate more discussion on what Armenia's options are and what Armenia is prepared to accept, he's been struck by how little discussion there was about what would have been or is an acceptable solution and compromise. "What I did hear was a little disturbing because it appeared to be a step back from where we were," he said. "I was surprised when I first got here and found out that most Armenians I met were adamantly opposed to the return of the occupied territories as part of a negotiation settlement." He noted that return of land was one of the core principles of the Madrid Principles. "It has long been my government's understanding of why the occupied territories were originally seized; they would be land for a peace option," he said. "So I was very surprised that there was no support for that anymore."
He said he understands how events like the 2016 April War make this even more difficult for the Armenian people, but "the harsh reality is that any settlement is going to require the return of some portion of the occupied territories." He went on to note that the status quo is no longer in Armenia's favor - from closed borders to the strain on the country's material and human resources to corruption risks associated with the conflict. "Corruption didn't grow because there are evil people here," he said. "The ground was pretty fertile for it because you have closed borders and a very small economy, so it's very easy to control markets." He also added that when a country is at war, it's easy to pushback on those that "might be offering criticism on certain aspects of society, when we're at war, people are dying, you have to be a patriot..."