The Approach Developed by Russia is Being Rejected by Azerbaijan: 'Justice'

'Justice' newspaper reports: 'It is evident that there are two versions of the 'Peace Agreement': the Western and the Russian. According to the Western version, the document demands the transfer of Artsakh to Azerbaijan, so that Russian peacekeepers can be removed and Russia's presence can be nullified. This was clearly visible during the recent meeting between Bayramov and Mirzoyan in Washington, called by Blinken.

The Russian version of the document is much milder. It states that 'in the Russian version, it is mentioned that the roads are open, delimitations and demarcations should be made, and territorial integrity should be recognized—except for Artsakh, because the issue of Artsakh will be discussed in the future, as it is currently not possible to negotiate on the status of Artsakh, given that one side has clearly won and the other side has clearly lost, and it is incorrect to view this issue in that emotional background.' Ultimately, it is necessary to understand which version the authorities favor, especially since they are actively negotiating with both sides.

We sought to get an answer to this question from Vigen Khachatryan, a deputy from the 'Civil Contract' faction:

— Mr. Khachatryan, which version of peace is ultimately more advantageous for the authorities? 

— First of all, there are no versions; there are approaches based on which versions are being developed. Our approach is based on ensuring that all reliable guarantees are related to the rights of the people from Artsakh. It is possible that Azerbaijan may be preparing some surprises in the future concerning border issues, but that is their opinion, and I do not exclude that. For now, the main issue is around Artsakh, and I see that the approach developed by Russia is essentially being rejected by Azerbaijan, stating that the status of Artsakh does not exist for them. As you can see, Russia cannot convince Azerbaijan, and the declaration made in Sochi did not include the term 'status of Artsakh.'

Armenia’s approach is as follows: we support the Russian version's approach, on the basis of which a version can emerge. The Russian side can turn its approaches into a version, and the version is that all parties agree on the solution, and there is no dispute. But we see that there are problems around this.

As for the other 'Brussels version,' where there are many general lines, these are known Washington and European approaches. We continue negotiations here as well, where the parties will not reject and which will guarantee peace. This includes all the rights of our compatriots living in the territories of Artsakh to live and create. This is the only approach, and we will continue to work with all sides.

— So ultimately, will we rely on a version where the status of Artsakh will be discussed?

— We will rely on a version that will guarantee lasting peace and create guarantees concerning the security of Artsakh and all citizens' rights.

— Mr. Khachatryan, how would you assess the rally that took place in Artsakh on October 30, which also appealed to the authorities of Armenia?

— To put it briefly, overall, these rallies are free and can occur frequently.

— We would like you to also comment on the issue of the recent elections of the 'Civil Contract' party, where, in essence, there were irregularities, followed by a recalculation that resulted in a different picture.

— I wouldn't say that a different picture emerged; rather, it became clear that there was a mistake in the count. It was undesirable, but humans make mistakes, and it was corrected.

— How do you comment on the fact that the faction leader, for instance, was not even elected…

— I do not want to comment on intra-party issues.

Details can be found in today's issue of the newspaper.