Monday, January 31 2022 23:19

ArmInfo.One could consider it beneath his or her dignity to respond to the claim and interviews by Armenia's Premier Nikol Pashinyan in recent months, which are full  of falsehood and fraud, Armenia's third president Serzh Sargsyan  stated in an interview on January 31. 

"But two reasons have made me take up the challenge," he said.  

The first reason is the premier's opinionated claims that he is fully  informed of the negotiations. 

"It is utter lies. It is impossible to read the documents and be  fully informed of the negotiations, form a full picture. Even I  cannot claim I am fully informed of the negotiations. Yes, I was  negotiating, but it was Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian who  prepared the negotiations, considering the subtleties at his  disposal. How did it happen that we followed the right way at once,  but they got what they got? And it is not for days or hours, but for  years that we talked to people well informed of all the previous  stages of negotiations," Mr Sargsyan said.  

So how did they happen to get entrapped by Azerbaijan if they are  perfectly informed of the negotiations? 

"How did they happen to swallow the bait they were offered back in  2019 and accept that document as a basis for negotiations? For a  whole year they did not reveal the process to Armenian society until  Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov laid the cards on the table,"  Mr Sargsyan said.  He is surprised at the Armenian premier's claims  in his recent interviews. According to Mr Sargsyan, he heard the  Azerbaijani president make similar claims back in 2008, 2009 and  2010. 

"When I heard some excerpts from his [Nikol Pashinyan's] interviews  about the Artsakh problem, I was just astonished as they contain the  so-called 'arguments' I heard from the Azerbaijani president back in  2008, 2009 and 2010. I feel hurt because he cannot any longer put  forward objective arguments that would afford us good opportunities  to get status for Artsakh. And if he tries to put forward these  arguments tomorrow, they will remind him of his own words," Mr  Sargsyan said.  

In commenting on the Armenian premier's claims about Mr Sargsyan's  verbal promises concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, which  had not been enshrined in any documents and had to be fulfilled in  2018 and 2019, Armenia's third president stated no verbal promises  had ever been made. 

"No verbal agreements. It is not our style - making concessions under  verbal agreements and so on," he said. 

The second reason is, according to Mr Sargsyan, that some thinking  people and political forces of Armenia are disappointed. 

"We have an atmosphere of disappointment, and their [the incumbent  authorities'] statements, as well as those by Azerbaijan, that the  Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been settled. I have come to state once  again that Artsakh will never be part of Azerbaijan. And, despite the  devastating war and capitulation, we have all the possibilities for  that," Mr Sargsyan said. He is surprised at the premier's statements  that Artsakh cannot be "completely Armenian" if Azerbaijanis are in  its power structure. 

"We are neither fascists nor racists to claim that the  Nagorno-Karabakh Parliament must be formed of Armenians alone. That  is, if it is not 'completely Armenian' it means it is not Armenian?  Are Armenians alone are members of Armenia's Parliament now? What are  we speaking of? If it is a manipulation, it is a failure. If it is  ignorance, it is funny. And my words are, of course, a message to the  international community, as, even after the devastating war, the  co-chairs themselves spoke of the fundamental principles of  settlement again," Mr Sargsyan said.

As to a remark that the co-chairs have not said anything for a long  period, he said: 

"I do not know. They have not said anything for a long period because  no one is saying. Have you heard Armenian officials to clearly say:  'what about the Nagorno-Karabakh problem?' the most they are saying  now is their referring to their own programme prepared before the war  - or even after it. Why? Ashamed?  Afraid? Or, as they claim, there  are verbal agreements precluding such statements?"