No millimeter of Armenia's territory has been left to others: Pashinyan

The description of the border demarcation process in Tavush Province as a concession is unacceptable, stated Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan during a Q&A session with the government at the National Assembly.

“If only the state border of the Republic of Armenia is being reproduced, then it is illogical to call the de jure existing border a concession. I would consider this process a success because for the first time in its history, Armenia is independently reproducing its border through negotiation, laying an important cornerstone for the subsequent development and stabilization of statehood,” he said.

Pashinyan emphasized that no millimeter of Armenia's territory has been left to others. He noted that before the start of the border demarcation process, dozens of discussions were held, and essentially, this process has undergone legal scrutiny.

He then displayed a 1976 General Staff map based on the results of the 1969 border demarcation, which serves as the foundation for the ongoing border demarcation process in Tavush Province today.

“We have meticulously reproduced the entire perimeter of Armenia's territory over the 19 pages of these maps. I want to highlight what a significant event this is for Armenia,” he underscored.

The Prime Minister reiterated that Armenia's territory is 29,743 square kilometers, which is the concept of real Armenia. “Those who do not know this are therefore the bearers of the concept of historical Armenia. Those who claim that Armenia's territory is not 29,743 square kilometers, particularly our opposition, are paving the way to assert that Armenia's sovereign territory is 300 square kilometers. With the same logic, they are opening pathways for those who say that Armenia's territory, for example, is 23 square kilometers. The debate here is not purely about square meters, but rather whether a sovereign state of Armenia exists or not,” he declared.

Pashinyan added that when people come and say they are initiating a movement of expectations, it leads directly to non-statehood, non-independence, and non-sovereignty. “They want people in Armenia to sit in a café in Yerevan dreaming about Kars and thus lose Yerevan. Here lies the difference between real and historical Armenia,” he emphasized. In conclusion, he added that real Armenia is the state for our children, where they should live.