Vartan  Oskanian: Pashinyan not only failed to protect Armenia`s  interests, but actively facilitated their erosion

ArmInfo. By any objective measure, Nikol Pashinyan has proven to be the worst negotiator Armenia has ever had. This is the opinion of former Armenian Foreign Minister  Vartan Oskanian.

"In the six years since he came to power, every diplomatic or  strategic dossier he has touched has turned to ash. Armenia, once a  resilient state, now stands hollowed out:  Nagorno-Karabakh lost,  mainland territories occupied, its defenses weakened, its alliances  frayed, and its people disillusioned. However, this is not simply the  result of Azerbaijani aggression; it is the product of breathtakingly  poor leadership and a near- textbook violation of every core  principle of sound negotiation strategy," he wrote on social media.

 He believes that Pashinyan's negotiating failures are not abstract.  They are concrete, deeply tangible, and have had disastrous results   real- world consequences. "Under his watch, Armenia brought war upon  itself, failed to prevent or stop it, and lost it in humiliating  fashion, with thousands of casualties. The ceasefire agreement was  signed under duress, and yet even in its aftermath, he failed to  secure the implementation of provisions favorable to Armenia. Worst  of all, Pashinyan effectively gave away Nagorno-Karabakh in Prague,  later washing his hands of it, paving the way for total ethnic  cleansing. Since then, Azerbaijan has methodically increased its  demands, expanded its territorial claims, kidnapped the leadership of  Nagorno Karabakh and occupied swaths of sovereign Armenian  territory-all while Pashinyan capitulated," he noted.

According to the former minister, Pashinyan's "negotiating strategy"  is characterized by fatal incompetence.  "He has repeatedly accepted  the other side's terms before talks even begin, leaving Armenia with  no leverage and no room to maneuver. Worse, he has consistently  failed to put Armenian priorities on the table at all. He negotiates  as though seeking closure, not results-showing neither spine nor  strategy. The latest example of this dysfunction came with  Pashinyan's acceptance of the last two elements of the so-called  peace agreement-knowing full well that Azerbaijan has not exhausted  its demands. In fact, Baku maintains a growing laundry list of  conditions, including the creation of an extraterritorial corridor  through southern Armenia, constitutional changes removing any  reference to Nagorno-Karabakh, and the erasure of the Minsk Group, to  name just a few. By agreeing to Azerbaijan's framework without  securing meaningful concessions or guarantees, Pashinyan has only  invited further pressure. This pattern-capitulation without  reciprocity, agreement without safeguards, and dialogue without  assertiveness-has left Armenia dangerously exposed. Under his  leadership, Armenia has lost not only territory and lives, but also  the moral authority and diplomatic capital needed to resist  Azerbaijani ambitions. His failures have transformed a conflict into  an existential crisis."

"Every negotiator is dealt a set of constraints, but capable leaders  shape outcomes within those constraints.  Pashinyan has done the  opposite. He has made poor decisions, rejected sound advice, and  chosen unilateral vulnerability over difficult diplomacy," he noted.   Oskanian is convinced that Pashinyan has alienated allies, misread  adversaries, and mismanaged the most critical moments in modern  Armenia's history.  "In any negotiation, success depends on clarity  of objectives, leverage, and strategic discipline. Equally important  are the principles of focusing on interests rather than positions,  inventing multiple options for mutual gain before committing to a  course, and insisting on objective standards to guide outcomes.   Pashinyan has demonstrated none of these. His tenure should be  studied in international relations and negotiation classes as a case  study in how not to negotiate-and how weak, undisciplined diplomacy  can lead to national undoing. Armenia today faces a security  nightmare not simply because of external threats, but because it has  been catastrophically let down by the man who was supposed to defend  it. Pashinyan has not only failed to protect Armenia's interests-he  has actively facilitated their erosion," Oskanian concluded.