Past daily of Armenia writes as follows, in particular: The Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of France to Armenia, Olivier Decottignies, gave an interview to Radiolur [program of the Public Radio of Armenia] and made a statement that is at least strange—if not more. He essentially said that Artsakh [(Nagorno-Karabakh)] was "given [to Azerbaijan] by the former [authorities of Armenia]", back in... 1991, with the Alma Ata declaration. Literally: "... Those who claim that Nagorno-Karabakh was recognized as part of Azerbaijan [by Armenia] in 2022 in Prague are lying because Nagorno-Karabakh has been recognized as part of Azerbaijan by Armenia since the Alma Ata declaration," the ambassador said.

Naturally, his statement, which also repeats the flawed theory of Artsakh-denying [Armenian PM Nikol] Pashinyan's self-justification, received a great reaction. The reacting [Armenian] figures emphasized that Ambassador Decottignies is either lying or is unaware of the Artsakh issue, the course of that issue, also the Alma Ata declaration. The ambassador's moment of unawareness can be ruled out in principle from the very beginning. A diplomat appointed as ambassador to Armenia cannot be unaware of the details of the most vital issue for Armenians. Secondly, no ambassador, as a rule, makes independent statements. Thirdly, France is a co-chair country of the OSCE Minsk [Group], and representatives of its diplomatic corps must be informed about the negotiation process.

However, it is obvious that what the ambassador said is illogical for several very simple reasons: If Armenia, as he and his supporter Pashinyan claim, recognized Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan back in 1991, then what was the active military phase of the Artsakh conflict about in 1992-94? Why was the NKR [i.e. the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic] representative signing the ceasefire document? In this case the most significant: as the OSCE MG [i.e. Minsk Group] co-chair, what was France negotiating about in connection with the Artsakh issue for about 30 years? What status issue of Artsakh were they discussing? Finally, why was the same France not even once referring to that Alma Ata piece of paper, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Artsakh issue?

We are sure that Ambassador Decottignies knows all this no less well. In that case, why does he keep exactly repeating Pashinyan's theory, and moreover, a "beaten" theory that has not withstood any criticism? And why is he doing it now? Many experts are sure that Ambassador Decottignies is actually not so much defending Nikol Pashinyan as it might seem from the outside, but rather first of all, the president of his country, Macron, who is considered one of the "godfathers" of the Artsakh denial, the surrender of Artsakh in Prague. That is, it is a simple "Nikolism" with French motives: everyone is to blame, except me. By the way, at the time when the same Macron was blamed by the Armenians of France for Prague, he did not hesitate [to say] that it was Pashinyan who recognized Artsakh as Azerbaijani, and in such conditions he could not do anything.