Armenia at the time interrupted substantive negotiations, which also included an opportunity to resolve the conflict while taking into account the interests of the population. Let them answer whose fault it is that everything turned out this way. Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) spokesperson Maria Zakharova stated this, as she commented on the publicizing by the Armenian government of documents from the negotiation process on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Zakharova noted that Moscow never conducted negotiations in the way expressed in Yerevan, regarding Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence, or its unification with Armenia. “Regarding Igor Valentinovich Popov’s 2021 response to media questions, I would like to remind: the then Russian co-chair of the [OSCE] Minsk Group refuted with facts the claim made by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in his article ‘Origins of the 44-day War’ that the Russian proposals for a settlement amounted to returning seven districts to Azerbaijan ‘just like that,’ without resolving the status issue of Karabakh. In reality, everything was somewhat different, if not entirely the opposite. It is easy to verify this: one only needs to carefully read the draft declaration on the first phase of Nagorno-Karabakh settlement and subsequent steps published on the Armenian government website, as well as the draft statement by Russia, the USA, and France on supporting that declaration, and the respective draft resolution of the UN Security Council,” the Russian MFA spokesperson said.

Those documents were discussed in Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations before the change of power in Armenia in May 2018. Neither side rejected them, although full agreement was not reached. According to Zakharova, the negotiations were conducted regularly until 2018 and 2019, when Pashinyan’s administration effectively interrupted the substantive dialogue. She recalled that at that time in Yerevan, discussions began claiming that the international recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence was Armenia’s priority. Corresponding statements were made by Pashinyan in March and August 2019 in Stepanakert, the capital of Karabakh, including the well-known statement, “Artsakh [(Nagorno-Karabakh)] is Armenia, period!”

“We remember very well what happened after that,” added the Russian MFA spokesperson, referring to the Second Karabakh War in autumn 2020, which was ended only through the mediation of Russia and personally President Vladimir Putin.

Zakharova emphasized that since that time, it is not Russia’s but Armenia’s, more precisely its leadership’s position that has changed. She recalled that on October 6, 2022, in the final statement of the Prague summit, Prime Minister Pashinyan recognized Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, including Karabakh. However, as the Russian MFA spokesperson noted, this document made no mention of the rights, freedoms, interests, or concerns of Karabakh’s local population. At the same time, the informal agreement reached in Moscow in November 2020 between the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia—that the status issue of Karabakh would be deferred for future generations—has also been forgotten.

“The publicized documents convincingly show that at different phases of the negotiations, opportunities were opening for a political-diplomatic resolution of the conflict and consideration of the interests of the people living there. Implementing this required strategic vision and political will from the parties. It is the mediators’ task to assist Baku and Yerevan, not to do everything for them. There were opportunities, and they were missed, but that is not our [i.e. Russia’s] fault,” Zakharova said.

According to her, the main question is who is responsible for the missed opportunities. “Let the leaders of this state answer to Armenia’s citizens on this matter,” concluded the Russian MFA spokesperson.