Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan gave an interview to Turkish media representatives. The transcript of the interview is presented below.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Distinguished representatives of the mass media of the Republic of Turkey, I greet you all.

As far as I remember, this is an unprecedented event and an unprecedented format, that is, a meeting in such a format has never taken place before, and I think it is good that we will have the opportunity to talk and exchange ideas today. I wish everyone successful work and I am ready to answer all your questions, please.

T24, Barçın Yinanç - Honorable Mr. Prime Minister, in Turkish we have a saying: children drink first, adults speak first, I hope that I am not the oldest in this group, but my friends asked me to thank you, that is why, as you mentioned, yes, we are very grateful for this unprecedented occasion and with that gratitude we want to start our conversation, gratitude not only to you, but to your staff, we are grateful for everything.

Sözcü TV, Burak Tatar – I can ask the first question. Thank you again for this opportunity and the invitation. I am Burak Tatar, the director of the foreign news department of Sözcü TV. At this moment, what point have we reached in the process of normalizing Turkey-Armenia relations, where exactly are we? And I am interested in the following question: if one day you leave politics and retire, what legacy would you like to leave behind regarding Armenia-Turkey relations and especially the South Caucasus? What kind of dream do you have regarding the region?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Well, it is very difficult to answer the second question very specifically, because we still have to see what results we are recording and what results there are to summarize. Of course, if we talk about wishes, I would definitely like diplomatic relations to be established between Armenia and Turkey, the border to be open for rail and road transport, and business ties to be direct, I mean in terms of border crossings and transport ties, because even today there is quite extensive trade turnover between Armenia and Turkey, there are business ties, but in essence, this happens indirectly.

And of course, this conversation that has started between Armenia and Turkey is very important, and I am often asked what results there are in Armenia-Turkey relations. Of course, as a rule, we say that in the meetings held in the format of our special representatives, an agreement has been reached that the border between Armenia and Turkey, the land border, will be opened for citizens of third countries and holders of diplomatic passports, and of course we are waiting for the implementation of this agreement. This agreement was reached back in the summer of 2022, but since this agreement has not been implemented yet, many interpret this as no results in Armenia-Turkey relations.

Frankly speaking, I have to disagree with that, because today there is a very direct dialogue, a very direct conversation between Armenia and Turkey, and if we take into account the previous period of our relations, this is a very significant change. The diplomatic representatives of Armenia and Turkey are in constant direct contact with each other. And I say again, for an outsider this may not be such a concrete result, but for me and for people in the state administration systems this is a concrete result, because previously we were even deprived of the opportunity to clarify each other's views, you see, we usually found out through third countries what they think in Ankara. Ankara, in fact, found out through third countries what they think in Yerevan.

Now there are even such situations and in the literal sense of the word, our various representatives can simply call and ask each other about their opinion on this or that issue, and this is a significant change, which is very important, and I am sure that it will bring results. And we also understand each other better, and what are the complications and problems that the parties have, what issues need additional clarification, what issues are there where the perspectives and viewpoints differ, and I must say frankly that I consider this a very important achievement.

We have already had several meetings with President Erdoğan during this time, we have had telephone conversations, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs have communicated and continue to communicate, our Minister of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure has communicated with his counterpart, the Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports has also communicated, the special representatives are in contact with each other. We already have concrete examples of cooperation, recently we transferred to Turkey two individuals who were wanted in Turkey or accused by the justice system.

These may not seem like great achievements, but if we consider what we had in the previous period, of course this is a very significant achievement. However, it is very important to note that this is a dynamic process and of course efforts must be made to ensure that this dynamic does not stop, but continues. This, in turn, depends, among other things, on the political will of the leaders and governments of both countries, and I see political will, another thing is that this political will must also develop mutually.

I should also emphasize, of course, that it is also a memorable event in some sense that President Erdoğan invited me to participate in the inauguration ceremony on the occasion of his election and I made the decision to go to Ankara. In addition to being a purely ceremonially important event and an important impetus, it was also an opportunity to communicate with representatives of Turkish political circles. It was also a very important event for bilateral relations. Look, I have been talking for about 5-7 minutes now about what we have in our relations. That means that there is at least something to list, if you had asked me 7 years ago, I would hardly have had anything to list.

Anadolu Agency, Muhammet Tarhan - I want to ask the second question. Mr. Prime Minister, I would like to thank you on behalf of the Anadolu Agency. Honorable Mr. Prime Minister, for a long time now, you have been making various and important conclusions about the perception of history in Armenia, you have been making criticisms and suggestions. We, as the Anadolu news agency, are following your statements in the original language, Armenian. I would like you to address the reasons for paying attention to this topic. What are you trying to achieve with this, both among your citizens here and within the Diaspora? Thank you.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - I think that any country should deal with its own history, that is obvious and I do not think that in this regard I or the Republic of Armenia are something unique. We always deal with our history, but it is important to record where, how and for what purpose to use the knowledge that history gives us. And it is also important to see the messages, to perceive the messages that history gives us.

You know, there is such an expression that lessons should be learned from history, but that lesson is not written on any page of history, that is, no history says that this happened, this happened, this happened, this happened, now pay attention - the lesson is the following, the conclusion is the following, that is, there is no such conclusion in history and it is a matter of political choice and political perception what lesson to learn and how to perceive history, how to use history. It is very important to use history as a source of knowledge, as a source of understanding about the present and the future, as a source of knowledge and information for building today and the future.

These are issues of political choice, because you know, when we talk about history and the lessons learned from history in any environment, there will always be a dispute, because everyone will perceive history from their own political perspective. I mean within the society, even within the same society. And, by the way, let me tell you that history itself is perhaps one of the most important political sciences or disciplines, and therefore, the perception of history is also in some sense a matter of political perception.

And what is the meaning and perception or reason for that conversation, because as you mentioned, yes, I often talk about history and my main message is the following both in Armenia and when talking to our compatriots in the Diaspora, that a demarcation must be made between history and today, and history and this day cannot be perceived in the same way, because this day is this day, history is history. We can't not have boundaries between the future and history, because in my understanding, the future should not be the mirroring of history, but the future is an opportunity to correct history or make better the pages of history which we want to make better. But this is also a matter of political choice.

I want us to understand this nuance correctly, there is no absolute truth in history, history, any perception of history is a political perception. This is true in general, but there are political forces that have their own recognized absolute truths about history precisely by political choice. There are societies, there are states that have their own absolute truths about history. And this is also undeniable.

And therefore, my understanding is that we must use our lessons from history to serve the interests of our state today, the Republic of Armenia, the state interest and the interests of the future. And by the way, I will tell you that in my understanding, this conversation is ripe both in Armenia and in the Diaspora, but I want to emphasize again that it is not about changing history or denying history. It is about changing our applied perception of history. Why, as what resource should history be used, what knowledge should be gained from history, which is not an easy question, but I am convinced that it is necessary.

This is necessary, and my contacts show that this conversation is ripe, but it is also important that this conversation matures not only within Armenia or among Armenians, but also in a regional context, because that is also an issue. What do we use history for? So that historical confrontations become eternal, or are historical confrontations a message for us to build a peaceful, cooperative, regionally stable future? I am the supporter of this second perception.

Hürriyet Daily News, Serkan Demirtaş - Thank you very much. I would like to continue our colleague's question, adapting it a little more to our daily politics. Your expressions and comments, especially those related to the genocide, find a very strong resonance both in Armenia and Turkey, and we read your comments and statements related to this topic. You also make very comprehensive statements. There is also such a concept that what you say is ''internal armenization of genocide''. I want to understand what kind of impact the genocide issue has on the relations between Armenia and Turkey now. In your opinion, is it already a past, past era, has that issue remained in the past, in terms of Armenia-Turkey relations? And Armenia used to pursue a policy, as we know, so that the genocide would be recognized by the parliaments of different countries, etc. Can we say that this policy will no longer be applied? Similarly, in the introductory part of your Constitution, there are sections where the expressions Western Armenia and genocide are included. If the Constitution is changed in your country, will they not find a place in the new constitution? I would like to hear your views on these topics.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Our official position is that international recognition of the Armenian Genocide is not among our foreign policy priorities today. This is an official formulation, but in this context there are issues the clarification of which is very essential and important, and I mainly constantly talk about these issues in a working mode both in Armenia and abroad, in conversations with our compatriots, and I think this is a good opportunity to talk about it publicly. First of all, I must say that, because these discussions and speculations also take place in Armenia, and not only in Armenia, it is talked about denial, denying or forgetting the Medz Yeghern.

I want to be very clear that in Armenia and among Armenians, this is an indisputable truth. In other words, it is simply impossible to deny or disavow it in our reality, because it is an undeniable truth for all of us, but this is not what we are talking about. I want to tell you directly, if I am not mistaken, about a speech I gave recently during a meeting with Armenians in Munich, when I said the following: dear compatriots, when the parliament or government of a distant country makes a decision, we are very excited about that decision. This is the case in our reality and there is no secret in it, and even those very distant countries, when they make such decisions and when the excitement or joy from that decision fades, the next moment the following question arises: what does that decision give us in our relations with our immediate environment? When we have tensions in our immediate environment, to what extent do those tensions contribute to stability, peace, etc. in our country, in our region, and so on.

It is also here that the question arises, where and how should we focus on serving the state interests of Armenia, and how and where should we focus on emphasizing what we know, including historical truths, and relying on those truths. Because the period in which that great tragedy occurred was a period when there was no Republic of Armenia.

Today there is the Republic of Armenia, an internationally recognized state, and that internationally recognized state has the opportunity to ensure the security and well-being of its own citizens, but certain conditions are necessary for this, and in this regard Armenia is not a unique country. And I again emphasized this during the meeting with our compatriots, I said, look how much all countries and we all attach importance to peace, but peace is first and foremost a regional phenomenon. I can present, for example, of course I was talking about it with a little humor, that our Government has had a very great international achievement and we can guarantee peace for the Republic of Armenia with Australia. I apologize to our Australian partners for mentioning it like that, although there is nothing wrong with saying that.

In other words, we have a very great achievement, peace, but with Australia, but with New Zealand, but with Brazil, which we really have, and we are happy that we have normal relations. But we need peace and good relations first of all in our environment, in our relations with our immediate neighbors, because peace, the peace that brings concrete results for the security and well-being of our country, is peace here.

Of course, I am not referring to global security, because it is clear that the world has been worried about a nuclear crisis for more than half a century, I leave those global issues aside in this context, which is of course also part of our agenda, insofar as we are part of the international community, but peace, the peace we need is the one that is available to us, which is here, now. And therefore, we must think first of all about regional peace, and that is the lesson, in my perception, that we must take from history.

And I gave an interview in this hall, in this room in 2020 a local Armenian TV, which asked me whether there is such a possibility that Turkey will not be a threat to the security of Armenia. And my answer was that yes, we should ask that question and try to answer that question, because I assume that Turkey will also ask the same question about Armenia. And I also try to answer that question in the course of my activities, also in the context that it was raised.

And of course, those statements are not taken for granted in Armenia. One more thing, there is no expression of Western Armenia in our Constitution, there is an expression of Western Armenia in other places, but it is not in the Constitution. I recently publicly announced to everyone on air that in my perception, Western Armenia is the Armavir region of the Republic of Armenia, and specific settlements of the Armavir region and Shirak region. And why, why am I making that statement? There are different versions about it in Armenia, why am I making that statement, because I have a practical task, as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, to answer the question that I mentioned a moment ago. Because I am speaking very directly to our public.

Now you know what, the bounderies between to our public, the international public, have been erased for reasons known to you, because social networks, the Internet, all announcements appear within seconds, all public announcements appear everywhere within seconds, and that is why that border whether we are talking to our public, we are talking to the international or regional public has already been erased.

My main message to our society is the following, I say that we should be able to look at ourselves, understand also the perception of others about us, what message are we giving to the region and the international community. If we give the region and the international community a message that wait, we will become stronger and you will see what territorial and other changes we will bring to the region, naturally everyone, or at least some of them, will perceive us as a threat. And if we hear such statements from our neighbors, we will also perceive it as a threat, something that has happened. Let's not hide it, the average statistical perception in the Republic of Armenia is that Turkey is a threat to the security of Armenia. And I suppose that sometimes the vocabulary, even the political vocabulary, that is used in the Republic of Armenia, not necessarily at the official level, but sometimes also at the official level, can be perceived as a threat for Turkey.

What I am saying is that it may turn out that we have already lost the causal relationship, we have already lost that point of which is the cause, which is the effect. Because of losing that point and because of these perceptions, we have gone through many complications and cataclysms. But now there is an opportunity to change the perception and the answer, the formulation of this issue. The opportunity arose from the fact that Armenia and Turkey exchanged messages that there is a desire on both sides of Armenia and Turkey to change the formulations of these issues, to change those emphases, to change the perspectives.

And this is why, including the press and experts, sometimes say that there is a historical opportunity. And returning to your question again, I would greatly like to use that historical opportunity myself, as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia. And, you are right, there is that nuance, I realize that sometimes I make statements that do not bring any benefit to me as a politician and our political party in a domestic political sense, but on the other hand, I understand that this opportunity cannot be missed.

What is that opportunity? It is an opportunity to strengthen Armenia's statehood, independence, sovereignty, but for me it is clear that it is possible to do it here, now, in this region through stability and peace, through economic cooperation. And therefore, we must try to do everything possible to use that opportunity. Because traditionally, you know, I want to be honest, it is sometimes very difficult to dispel the pessimism from pessimists, because look, I said that an agreement was reached in 2022, which is, in fact, very important, but still, it is not the final point, and many say, here is a simple example, that an agreement was reached, that agreement is not being implemented, you should, meaning I should record the failure of that policy. I do not agree with that.

Both I and our political team are determined, patient, consistent to achieve the point that the region is a source of stability, peace and prosperity for the Republic of Armenia through conversation, dialogue, facts and arguments. But for this to happen, the region must also be a source of peace, cooperation, prosperity, security and stability for other countries in the region. Of course, I cannot think for other countries and formulate for the interests of other countries, but also after the 2021 elections, a point was included in our Government's program, we call that point regionalization.

It is just a word, but it contains many layers, this means that when conducting our policies, we perceive ourselves, first of all, as a regional country. This does not mean that we will limit or cut off or reduce our other relations, but we perceive ourselves, first of all, as a regional country. And what makes it interesting? Look, when we included that thesis in the program, I noted - of course, the circumstances were not clear, but that was 2021, but what made 2022-2023 so significant and important is that I, as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, had meetings and discussions with the leaders of all the countries of our region during that period. Such a situation, no matter how strange it may seem, was not a very usual thing for us.

By the way, returning to the dynamics of our relations with Turkey, you know, I have to be direct, because this meeting and similar meetings will be more meaningful, so that we maximally avoid ambiguities. You know, at a time when it was on the agenda that there should be contacts between representatives of Armenia and Turkey, the very fact that such contact is taking place could have a very complex reaction on social networks, etc. Naturally, the public's reaction also somewhat constrains the government elected by that public.

But now I consider it a very important achievement, I will mention a very simple thing, which may seem simple at first glance, but is symbolic, that for example, when I have meetings with the leaders of various countries in New York, and we post small materials about my meetings on my Facebook page, on the way back I record that my meeting with the President of Turkey has been the most popular among users of our social networks, with the most views, the most likes. I look at it with surprise. But now it may seem, well, we are discussing Facebook likes, but I say again, we need to be in the dynamics. For example, our first meeting was not like that, but on the contrary, even the fact of the meeting was mainly against a negative background, why should the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia have such a meeting, etc. In other words, I mean that many complexes have already been overcome, which in practical terms are not reflected in statistics, trade turnover, etc., but it is a very important thing. And I I consider it an achievement, I must say it directly. I consider it an achievement and this is also the reason why I tell the pessimists that it is too early to record the failure of this direction and this policy.

Moreover, I am convinced that if we move forward with these small steps consistently, calmly, based on arguments, in an atmosphere of mutual respect, the question will not be whether there will be a normalization or not. The question will be when there will be a normalization. It will only be a matter of time, which will, in turn, of course, be affected by a variety of circumstances. This normalization may be postponed for another three months, another six months, another year. But today my perception is that it is a matter of time, and we must patiently walk with that time and, first of all, be guided by the logic of not doing any harm. If we do not cause very specific intentional harm to this process, in my opinion, the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations is now a matter of time.

TRT World, Yusuf Erim - Your Excellency, I will ask the question in English, if you do not mind.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Welcome.

TRT World, Yusuf Erim - It's about the Diaspora, about Armenians living abroad. You also talked about the normalization of relations with Turkey. You mentioned that Turkey and Armenia used to communicate through a third party, but now you are talking directly, without a mediator. Do you think that Turkey and Armenia will be able to cooperate in third countries in the future, especially while you are waiting for the normalization to take place, whether it is the opening of the border or the implementation of other agreements as a means of building trust? In particular, I would like to ask about Syria. There are many Armenians living in Syria, Turkey has a lot of influence in Syria. Is this an area where you see an opportunity to cooperate with Turkey, so that you can provide necessary aid to ethnic Armenians living in Syria, or Lebanon, another country where Turkey also has influence. Or cooperate on other international issues, while you are waiting for the formalization of the bilateral normalization in the form of a document.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - You know, we already have very concrete facts of cooperation in the international arena. And I think it is obvious that, for example, in the elections for the OSCE Secretary General, we had a very concrete example of cooperation. And that is a good example, which shows that the issue that you were raising regarding the future is already a reality today.

As for third countries, the peculiarity there is that of course we are naturally limited by the sovereignty of those third countries and naturally we are not talking about interfering in the affairs of third countries and I assume your question is not about it as well.

But, of course, we are interested in how we can cooperate on the issue of Syria, from where, unfortunately, some disturbing news has started to come again. And there is also such a dialogue between Armenia and Turkey, it is not a very extensive dialogue, but nevertheless, yes, that agenda exists, I say again, respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and jurisdiction of all countries. In other words, our perceptions are such.

And yes, obviously, we have an Armenian community in Syria, whose fate concerns us. Unfortunately, due to the events that have taken place in recent years, many were forced to leave Syria. But today there is still an Armenian community there, and we also have an Armenian community in Lebanon, and we are making efforts to see what we can do to ensure the best possible conditions for our communities in those countries, what is within our reach. And in the specific case of working with Turkey in those directions, regarding Syria, we have had specific discussions and conversations, and if nothing prevents, we will also have specific manifestations of cooperation.

Medyascope, Mehmet Tatli - Honorable Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for this invitation. We have had meetings these two days. And during those meetings, we were mainly told that at the moment, Azerbaijan is an obstacle to relations between Armenia and Turkey. A moment ago, you spoke about the importance of peace and good neighborliness in the region. We know that there are also agreements between America and Israel regarding Iran, and they are talking about the possibility of something military. How will this affect Armenia, in terms of negotiations with Azerbaijan? How do you assess the policy pursued by Trump and Israel towards Iran and can it have any interconnected impact on Armenia-Turkey relations?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - You know, for example, last year we recognized the independence of Palestine, and I must say that this was also an expression of our regionalization policy. And the position of our immediate neighbors, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey, did not play a secondary role in this decision. And in this regard, of course, regional situations concern and worry us, I am talking about negative events, and naturally, when some positive development occurs, we try to contribute to those positive developments to the best of our ability.

Of course, we also have good relations with the United States of America. This year we signed a document on strategic partnership. We have good relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and naturally, any tension in their relations worries us. And, as I have already said, peace in the region is also a factor and guarantee of Armenia's well-being. This does not mean that we are talking only about peace in Armenia, because of course, I can give you the example of 2008, when events took place in Georgia. You know the military situation related to South Ossetia, which very quickly had a negative impact on the socio-economic life of Armenia.

I mean, this is precisely the very concrete justification of that ideology of regionalization, because it is impossible for there to be no stability and peace in the region, and for a single country to enjoy stability and peace. It does not happen so. And in my opinion, this is precisely the fundamental change in perception that our region needs. And in that sense, of course, it is disturbing, but on the other hand, there are also certain signals that there is a desire to overcome differences through negotiations, peacefully, diplomatically. And I hope that we will go with that scenario, because the stability and peace of the Islamic Republic of Iran is important to us, as well as all the countries in the region. And we are trying to conduct our policies with this logic, and wherever we have an effort to make, because understandably not everything depends on us, we will spare no efforts.

NTV, Mete Çubukçu - Thank you very much, honorable Mr. Prime Minister. I have the following question: after the Karabakh war, there are talks about some kind of corridor linking Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan in the agreements, Turkey still continues its position and formulation on this corridor, and Turkey calls it the “Zangezur Corridor”. What is your position regarding this corridor? Here, too, we all saw the “Crossroads of Peace” project, is it an alternative to the “Zangezur Corridor” or does it reflect your general regional approach? Thank you.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - You know, first of all, the expression “Zangezur Corridor” is incomprehensible and unacceptable to us, because first of all, the Republic of Armenia has nothing to do with that expression, and the fact that such an expression is used, in the Republic of Armenia it is perceived as a territorial claim against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Armenia. I recently published an article on this topic, the main meaning of which was that we are in favor of opening regional communications, and let me say that first of all we are interested in opening regional communications, because in fact we are the ones who are under blockade. No other country in the region is under blockade. We have 4 borders, two of which are completely closed. And this fact in itself shows how much we need and are interested in opening regional communications.

Paragraph 9 of the trilateral statement of November 9, 2020 is often referred to, but I want to draw your attention to a very important fact, that in paragraph 9 of the trilateral statement of November 9, there is no expression of corridor at all. I understand that the word corridor is used differently in other regions and in international discourse, but in the context of the trilateral statement of November 9, there is a nuance, there is the expression of the Lachin corridor, which in this context is specific, that is, it is written and signed, and in paragraph 9 of the trilateral statement of November 9, the expression of corridor does not exist at all.

And moreover, there is a lot of talk about the fact that in the trilateral statement of November 9, there is a provision that the security of the transportation of passengers and cargo through the territory of Armenia must be ensured by representatives and forces of third countries. There is no such thing at all in the trilateral statement of November 9. Moreover, it is written that the Republic of Armenia guarantees the movement of goods, vehicles, and passengers. How can the Republic of Armenia guarantee security if it itself does not provide security?

But I also want to make the following observation regarding the trilateral statement: the trilateral statement cannot be treated piecemeal. For example, the trilateral statement mentions the exchange and return of prisoners of war, hostages, and other detained persons, but this issue has not been resolved yet. Moreover, it is being exacerbated by the trials taking place in Baku, which, in our assessment, are staged trials where prohibited measures, torture, and according to our information, other prohibited measures, etc. are being used. The trilateral statement mentions Nagorno-Karabakh, but Azerbaijan continuously claims that there is no Nagorno-Karabakh. The trilateral statement talks about the return of refugees to Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions, but following the trilateral statement, on the contrary, the number of refugees has increased, and forced displacement has occurred, etc. I mean, it is not a good approach to treat the provisions of the trilateral statement piecemeal. In some places, they say it is no longer in force, in other places, they say it is in force, while attributing to it provisions that do not actually exist. After all, it is a public document.

As for communications: is the Republic of Armenia ready to provide a connection between the western regions of Azerbaijan and the Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan through its own territory? Yes, of course it is ready. And we have made a very specific proposal to Azerbaijan on this topic, which, in our opinion, is not merely a proposal, but a solution to the problem in terms of railway freight transportation. And we are waiting for Azerbaijan’s response.

But I want to draw your attention to the fact that in general, including in the trilateral statement of November 9, 2020, there is no such separate agenda for providing a transport connection between the western regions of Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan. This agenda is included in the general agenda of opening regional communications. Which means that Armenia and Azerbaijan must mutually open communications for each other, both external and internal, that is, from Armenia to Armenia through the territory of Azerbaijan, and from Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan through the territory of Armenia.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, for example, there is no railway connection from the northern regions of Armenia to Meghri, that is, the southern region, and the railway connection passes only through the territory of Azerbaijan, that is, the Autonomous Republic of Nakhchivan. In other words, this assumes, and therefore we say, that we are certainly ready to provide the railway connection and we expect that a similar connection will be provided for Armenia, in particular, for the railway connection from Yeraskh to Meghri, because due to the mountainous, highly mountainous terrain, there are difficulties in having a railway from south to north of Armenia.

At the same time, in our understanding, this also means the creation of a railway connection from Azerbaijan through the territory of Armenia to Turkey and vice versa, and the creation of a road transport connection, including from Azerbaijan to Turkey and vice versa. This, in turn, means that Armenia can be connected to the Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia via rail and road transport through the territory of Azerbaijan. Of course, in this case, the opening of the Armenia-Turkey railway is also assumed, etc.

We are ready for these solutions. And we do not understand why Azerbaijan does not respond to these solutions and, on the contrary, an attempt is constantly made to use the topic within escalation logic. In other words, the question has a very clear answer: is the Republic of Armenia ready to provide the opportunity for railway freight transportation from western Azerbaijan through the territory of Armenia to Nakhchivan? Yes, it is ready. And we also expect that the same opportunity will be created for the railway connection from Armenia to Armenia through the territory of Azerbaijan. We are also ready to provide road transport communication.

By the way, I emphasized in my last article that if in other conditions, in other cases there would still be a need to make infrastructure investments, but right now, in the event of a political and legal decision, it is possible to provide road transport communication from Turkey through the territory of Armenia to Azerbaijan through the Margara checkpoint, where the infrastructure is ready, the roads are in normal condition, up to the Tegh border point, after which, crossing the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, to Lachin and from there deep into Azerbaijan.

That is, just today, and I have publicly announced this, we are ready to provide such a road connection, which is expressed and is the combination of these perceptions, which we call the “Crossroads of Peace”. Moreover, we have specifically chosen such a name for this project so that none of our neighboring countries will be allergic to this name. And I think that this is a very direct justification of our constructive position and positioning.

“Agos” Armenian weekly, Lusyen Kopar - My question concerns the Armenian prisoners of war in Azerbaijan. Ruben Vardanyan is imprisoned, he is currently on a hunger strike. There is also some criticism of the Armenian government in the Armenian press regarding these topics, saying that appropriate efforts are not being made. What do you think about this issue?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - I have already said that this situation is very worrying for us. Today we have at least 23 prisoners, hostages, and other detained persons in Azerbaijan, and we are also trying to make every effort to resolve this issue. But on the other hand, we must understand that this is happening in a situation where Azerbaijan, in fact, is also using this factor with escalation logic and for escalation purposes. And when they say that the Armenian Government is not making the necessary efforts to resolve this issue, if people say something like that, it means they are sufficiently informed. If they are sufficiently informed, then they should take the next step and show what action the Armenian Government should take that would bring results, and the Government is not making that effort.

I generally understand this criticism and always say that as long as the efforts that the Government is making do not yield results, everyone can say that no effort is being made, because these efforts are mainly made at the diplomatic level. Why? Because in this genre, public statements should be very targeted and serve a specific purpose. And beyond certain cases of these public statements, they do not bring any benefit and, on the contrary, harm. I always bring the example of December 2023, when 32 of our captured compatriots returned to Armenia, and until the last second no one knew about the efforts that we were making and until the last second there were criticisms that the Government was not doing anything. And those people were right from their point of view, because from their point of view, the Government does something only in the case when that problem is solved.

As long as that issue is not resolved, anyone can claim that the Government is not making the necessary efforts, but until the official announcement in December 2023 about the return of our captured compatriots, until that last moment, there was a lot of harsh criticism that the Government was not doing anything. And the Government was doing it, and it became known only some time after those statements, and it became obvious.

I have already said that this is a painful issue, but there is also the following: we see that Azerbaijan, unfortunately, is using this issue, and I say again, especially in the context of the peace process, when there are constant attempts to bring in additional escalation factors, including public statements about torture, visual justifications about prohibited means, which is of course disturbing, unacceptable, and the Government of Armenia has expressed a clear position on this issue.

İhlas Haber Ajansı, Yaprak Mutlu – Honorable Mr. Prime Minister, thank you. My question concerns Armenia's accession process to the European Union. Armenia has officially started the process of accession to the European Union. As we know, a decision was made in the Armenian parliament on this. And my question is, at what stage is Armenia now in terms of accession to the European Union, how do you maintain the balance with relations with Russia and the West?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - The Republic of Armenia has adopted a balanced and balancing foreign policy. And within the framework of that policy, we are developing our relations with the European Union, and also with Russia within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. And as I already said, our regionalization policy also fits into the context of those relations, that formula. Our relations with the European Union have developed and deepened in recent years, and against the background of those developments, civil society, public representatives submitted a bill to the parliament with about 50,000 signatures. Our Constitution provides that citizens can submit a bill with 50,000 signatures for parliamentary consideration, which is what happened, and our ruling majority decided to vote in favor. That vote in favor also fits into the logic of the balanced and balancing foreign policy.

We also do not oppose the deepening of our relations with the European Union to our relations with our other partners. Moreover, an interesting fact, if we look closely at our region, two of our four neighbors are candidates for EU membership. And I mean this process also does not contradict our regionalization policy. But on the other hand, we understand, and it is obvious, that the adoption of that bill does not mean membership to the European Union, because that is a completely different process. We thereby record our political interest in that process, understanding that it is a complex process.

But on the other hand, in the context of a balanced and balancing foreign policy, we also want to have a certain menu of alternatives for our people, as I put it, because membership in the European Union can ultimately also take place in the event of approval through a general referendum, in the case of the Republic of Armenia, because even in that case it is not yet a fact that Armenia will join the European Union, because the member states of the European Union must also reach a consensus in their turn.

I mean, I want to say it directly, we simply want the Republic of Armenia to overcome the foreign policy of the absence of alternatives. We want the Republic of Armenia and the people of Armenia to have alternatives. This is not at all a direct choice of one of those alternatives, but it is a possible opportunity, another alternative opportunity for our state and our people. This is essentially a service, of course also for our society at least, and more than 50 thousand signatures were collected, close to 60 thousand, and it is also an expression of our democratic nature, if the Constitution provides such an opportunity, why should the democratic Government and the democratic majority reject that project. And this is our perception, and I think that it is an important addition to the menu and opportunities of the people of the Republic of Armenia and the foreign policy of the Republic of Armenia, if I may put it that way.

I say again, one of our most important tasks of our balanced and balancing policy is to overcome the policy of lack of alternatives and enter a place where we can look more carefully at our region, look more carefully at the world, look more carefully at the opportunities, analyze the threats more carefully, but also see opportunities. And this is the logical continuation, I say again, including of our regional policy, because I don’t know what our approach would be, but in our discussions and analyses, this has been of significant importance, that we have recorded that two of our four neighbors are candidates for membership in the European Union. Moreover, quite recently, this message was also delivered by Turkey, that Turkey has not abandoned the European policy at all. This is also true for Georgia, no matter how much there are certain problems in the relations between Georgia and the European Union now, but Georgia also declares that it has not abandoned the policy of rapprochement with the European Union, and these decisions of ours should also be viewed in this context.

CNN Türk, Idris Arikan – Honorable Mr. Prime Minister, there is a process in Turkey now, irrespective of the many difficulties that exist, we see that this process is also related to Azerbaijan. Whoever we talked to, they talk about it. We want to understand what is being talked about with Azerbaijan, there are problems between Armenia and Azerbaijan that have been going on since the 1990s, there is a refugee issue, etc. In statements made by Baku, they sometimes say that these refugees must return, etc. Is this perceived as a territorial demand, the issue of the return of these people, etc. What is your perspective, your point of view on this issue, when Azerbaijan also raises the issue of the return of refugees?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - There is a very important addition to your question. Azerbaijan actually raises an issue that it calls “western Azerbaijan”. And Azerbaijan calls “western Azerbaijan” approximately 60-70% of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia and invites us to discuss the issue of “western Azerbaijan”, while calling 60-70% of the territory of the Republic of Armenia “western Azerbaijan”. We say that there is no “western Azerbaijan” in Armenia. If we want to look for western Azerbaijan, or see western Azerbaijan, then western Azerbaijan is the Kazakh, Aghstafa, Getabey, Kelbajar, Lachin, Zangelan, Kubatlu regions of Azerbaijan, if I forgot to name some of the regions, it does not mean a deliberate omission, but I mean, we can look at the map and say where western Azerbaijan is. Here is western Azerbaijan. There is no western Azerbaijan on this side of this line. In case of great desire, Nakhchivan can also be considered western Azerbaijan in geographical terms.

I mean, they are trying to place this under the logic of humanitarian issues, calling on us to discuss some issue, but I say again, they call 60% of the sovereign territory of our country “western Azerbaijan”. And therefore, such an issue is not something to be discussed by us, it cannot be discussed by any country.

And in general, if we are talking about the topic of refugees, I have already mentioned, we even have a document about the return of refugees to Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions. In Armenia and the Diaspora, there are refugees from Nakhichevan, Baku, Sumgait, the adjacent regions of Nagorno-Karabakh, Ganja, etc. Our perception is that these are simply territorial claims against Armenia, and therefore we cannot discuss this issue.

The so-called “Zangezur corridor” is also unacceptable for us for this very reason, because it contains a territorial claim against the Republic of Armenia. If we are talking about transport communication and economic communication, we are open and say yes, we are ready, as I have already said, to unblock regional, transport and economic ties under the conditions of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, jurisdiction and reciprocity of the countries. And understanding that there are complications, we even say that we are ready for certain simplifications so that this becomes a reality, and we have made a specific proposal for the restoration of the railway connection and are waiting for Azerbaijan's response. Moreover, we are not publishing the essence of this proposal for the simple reason to rule out a violation of diplomatic ethics, since it would mean revealing the essence of a working document, but in our assessment we have resolved this issue and expect a similar solution for ourselves.

Today I say that we have proposed a solution that will solve the issue of railway freight transportation from western Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan through the territory of Armenia. All that remains is for Azerbaijan to agree to this solution. Moreover, since 2022, if I am not mistaken, the Government has been circulating a draft Government decision on the opening of three checkpoints on the border with Azerbaijan. In other words, the draft is about opening checkpoints at specific border points so that Azerbaijani vehicles, cargo, and citizens can travel through the territory of the Republic of Armenia, including to Nakhichevan. And this is how we see the issue.

Azerbaijan contradicts itself. In what way? Azerbaijan contradicts itself by the fact that they officially call 2021 and the following period a post-conflict period. But they speak the language of conflict every day. In other words, these two narratives of Azerbaijan do not match each other. Every day the language of conflict, every day aggressive rhetoric, every day force, if not every day, very often, very often the threat of force and the use of force, and the narrative of "western Azerbaijan" that calls into question the very existence of Armenia, let's be honest, the very existence of the state of Armenia. And in parallel, an invitation to discuss, sorry, in my opinion, that is at least strange.

By the way, and it is perhaps within the framework of that peace formula that on the one hand I say that starting from this line, western Azerbaijan is here, but there is no “western Azerbaijan” on this side of this line, but I understand that this conversation would be incomplete if I did not say that western Armenia is also here. This is essentially two sentences, but this is our perception of peace and our idea, because if these formulas do not exist, moreover, I say again, there may be all sorts of different perceptions of history, historical events, etc., but if we want to build peace, it is impossible to build anything on a flowing region.

By the way, there is something very important. Let us not forget that the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan already have the first mutually ratified international document, which is the regulations of the delimitation commissions of our countries, which was signed by the commissions of our countries and ratified according to the domestic procedures of our countries, where it is recorded that the basis, the basic principle of delimitation is the Alma-Ata Declaration. The Alma-Ata Declaration, which was signed in 1991, makes two references in the context of our issue, the first is that the Soviet Union ceases to exist, and the administrative borders of the countries of the Soviet Union become state borders. And therefore, this narrative already contradicts the de jure document existing between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it directly contradicts it. We are committed to that agreement and are consistently and patiently moving towards peace.

T24, Barçın Yinanç - The Turkish Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State always talk about the Caucasus region in their conversations. I think you also met with Trump, could the US position have any role in this peace process? Because if we look at it from another perspective, from a certain point of view, under the conditions of Trump's presence, according to some interpretations, many countries may prefer the so-called disorderly world. Or let's say some regional developments, conflicts, the war between Russia and Ukraine, a possible ceasefire, etc., are interpreted differently. Therefore, as for that opportunity, the window you pointed out, in your opinion, are there such factors in the world and the region, such developments that can be an obstacle to that opportunity, that window.

And I want to understand if peace with Azerbaijan, which is not yet visible on the horizon, but the absence of Azerbaijan-Armenia relations hinders the development of relations between Armenia and Turkey. Can you clarify the arguments used against the pessimists you mentioned a little more, because in the end, a normalization between Armenia and Turkey has not yet been secured? You say that it is a matter of time, of course, some positive signals and messages have come from Turkey, and is this what you accept as a basis to say that it is a matter of time? I do not want to repeat, but it seems that the longer peace with Azerbaijan is delayed, the Armenia-Turkey relations will continue to remain unsettled. Don't you see this risk?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - I would like to disagree with that formulation that Armenia-Azerbaijan peace is not visible on the horizon. I will say that it is simply a constant attempt to bring smokescreen along the horizon so that peace is not visible. In fact, very important pillars of peace have been laid between Armenia and Azerbaijan. I have already mentioned one of the pillars.

Armenia and Azerbaijan, in fact, agreed to recognize each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty on the basis of the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration. This is what should be visible on the horizon. Moreover, this reality has been reconfirmed in the agreed articles of the draft peace treaty, they sides have recorded that they have no territorial claims to each other and mutually undertake not to make such territorial claims in the future. This is very clearly visible on the horizon, but now you will ask, what is that smokescreen? The smokescreen is the narrative about "western Azerbaijan," because when we have reached an agreement that we recognize each other's territorial integrity, then there should be no talk of "western Azerbaijan."

The trials taking place in Baku are a smokescreen, which have one goal, at least that’s our perception, to nullify the achievements that we have had in the peace process, because we have been negotiating the peace process for four years and we have results. I have already said that we do not record it, we are constantly focused on the peace agreement, which is of course an important cornerstone, but the fact that Armenia and Azerbaijan have signed an international document and ratified it in both countries is already a fact and a reality. Moreover, we have demarcated border areas. And here is the problem: what path do we take from this point? I, if you were paying attention, said that if we are consistent in our efforts, that path, that project is already on the table, it remains only not to abandon that project. In essence, we do not need to build much new at this stage, we only need to not destroy what has been recorded. This is what we are talking about.

Yes, we also understand the sensitivities and specificities that exist in Turkey-Azerbaijan relations. It is impossible to deny this, but on the other hand, I have already said that we also have processes in Armenia-Turkey relations. And I just realized that in the first seven minutes, when I was mentioning the events in Armenia-Turkey relations, I left out things that I could have said, reaching 10, 11, 12, 15 minutes. Moreover, for two years in a row now, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia has participated in the Antalya Diplomatic Conference. After the devastating earthquake, the Minister of Foreign Affairs visited the disaster zone in Turkey, we sent humanitarian assistance, it is good that we sent humanitarian assistance, but it is bad that it happened under the circumstances and due to such tragic events.

But I say again, also in terms of Turkey's role, here in my opinion Turkey also has something to choose, because we hear that Turkey is trying or at least, maybe we are misreading the message. As you mentioned, why is Turkey also discussing the issues of the South Caucasus with the United States? Because our perception is that Turkey, at least the messages are like that, Turkey is in favor of stability in the South Caucasus. We see that Turkey, at the level of both the President and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is in favor of signing a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And if we understand these messages correctly, at least either we understand that maybe this also means a certain balance in Turkey's relations in the South Caucasus or maybe we understand it the wrong way. But on the other hand, any effort that will contribute to the signing of a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan will certainly be useful. However, we must also take into account that Armenia and Azerbaijan are currently working in a bilateral format, but on the other hand, we also want our international partners to be aware of what is happening in the peace process, and we also share our information with them.

T24, Barçın Yinanç - Everyone, of course, had the opportunity to ask one question, but if you would like to convey something to the Turkish society, to convey some message, you are welcome.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Yes, I would like to. Do you know what surprised me with the way you started your speech? You said that you have an expression: “Children drink first, adults speak first.” The issue is that we also have that expression. I must say that this is the most surprising part of my contacts with Turkish representatives for me, because during meetings, negotiations, diplomatic discussions with various representatives, perhaps there is also such a regional custom, we constantly refer to our folk proverbs.

Without exaggeration, there have probably been at least three or four cases when, in conversations with Turkish representatives, either I said that there is such a proverb in Armenia and I quoted it, and the Turkish interlocutor said, you know what, we also have such a proverb, or the Turkish representative said, you know, we have such a saying, and I also said, but you know what, we say it too. Now I was very surprised when you said the very first words, you talked about the fact that they say in your country, “children dring first, adults speak first.” This is an expression that is widely spread in Armenia, and I have heard this expression thousands of times from our elders, and I myself, having already become a parent and in the status of an adult, have used it thousands of times in my interactions with our children. If this could be perceived as a message, I think it is a pretty good message. Thank you very much.