How Can the Leader of a Warring Country Be Described as Constructive? Have You Ever Heard Me Call Aliyev Constructive?

The third President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, finds it incomprehensible how Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev can be considered "constructive." "How can the leader of a warring country be described as constructive? Have you ever heard me say that Aliyev is constructive?" Sargsyan stated in an interview regarding the negotiation process of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

"In January 2018, the document was discussed, Mr. President. In Krakow, we remember it was your government’s last or second-to-last meeting of foreign ministers. Three months later, when you were elected as Prime Minister in parliament, you mentioned in response to a question from one of the deputies that the negotiation process did not inspire optimism, Azerbaijan's expectations were unrealistic, and they were unacceptable for us. This thesis has been widely circulated by the current government, reminding you that during your time or at the moment you handed over power, the negotiation process was at a deadlock or did not inspire optimism. In that case, what were the foreign ministers in agreement on? Was there a principled agreement between them in January 2018 in Krakow?"

Sargsyan continued by saying, "I see, Davit, that you have also fallen under their manipulation and you are quoting my words, let's say, truncated. But in that response, I continued to discuss the topic." "I remember. This is the most famous episode, that’s why I didn’t quote it. I know your statement well."

Sargsyan asserted, "That is another manipulation and their method is to cut out a sentence or a word from the context and turn it into a flag, trying to discredit. More accurately, they are not discrediting previous processes but trying to justify why they failed in the end. But the essence of what I said has always been very clear: every moment, every day one can expect provocations from Azerbaijan."

"That's not new. We have always been expecting it."

"I should not have stated anything new there; I should have mentioned the reality. And the reality cannot be new. I have stated the reality: we are constructive, Azerbaijan is destructive, the co-chairs see this very clearly, and this is a normal situation. What else could I say, Davit? Should I have said like them, 'We are winning, tomorrow Karabakh will become independent, just like during the 44-day war'? Should I have said it that way?"

"On the contrary, the Prime Minister said the opposite, Mr. President. He said that we are also constructive, Azerbaijan is also constructive. In May 2020, in response to a question from one of the deputies, he indeed attributed constructiveness to Azerbaijan."

Sargsyan replied, "Exactly, the problems also arose from that. How can the description of a leader of a warring country be limited to 'constructive'? Have you ever heard me say that Aliyev is constructive? One can say that he is realistic; one can say, if you really want to, that he is intelligent, educated, etc. But what does constructive mean? Where has constructiveness manifested? Where?"

"You know, all this confusion has been created by them in the negotiation process for two reasons. One reason was indeed a lack of mastery over the topic. And it was arrogance that they could invent something new by disregarding, sidelining the proposals of the co-chairs. The second reason, I think, is that maybe, although they think so poorly of us, I have to convince myself otherwise, because people have the desire or had the desire to achieve a better process. But the desire cannot be fulfilled without the corresponding conditions: knowledge, strength, flexibility, etc. If you remember, one of the former Prime Ministers of Russia said this type of phrase, which later became a catchphrase: 'We wanted to do good, it turned out as always.' That’s how it is with them. They wanted to achieve a better negotiation process; it turned out completely the opposite. They came to power wanting a better Armenia; they got a black-and-white Armenia. They wanted to be more democratic; they ended up with political forces talking to each other with insults. They wanted to get a corruption-free Armenia, and they are neck-deep in corruption. They wanted a more combat-ready army, and they destroyed that army. They wanted more modern weapons, as they say, a grease on top of the arms, and that weapon proved to be of no use in that devastating war for us. This is how their method of operation is. This series can be continued very long related to press freedom, the judicial system, and so on.