balances . Pashinian ' s individualistic and discrete approach to conflict resolution led to the fact that other institutions and political forces as well as the public did not have a lot of opportunities to have a say and were largely removed from the negotiation process . This became even more vivid due to the extreme polarization of the Armenian political forces and public who were in one night informed about the conditions of the Joint Statement on Karabakh signed and were not ready to accept them .
In this section , the statements of Prime Minister Pashinian in the pre and postwar periods from 2018 to 2021 are analysed , to understand how his initial statements corresponded to his declarations made in the 2020 post-war period , to what extent they were consistent and to see how the statements impacted the Karabakh negotiation process .
In his statements Pashinian has touched upon a number of issues which have been identified and classified to provide an analysis :
1 ) The issue of the seven surrounding districts taken by Armenia in the 1994 war 2 ) The issue of the stakeholders and the format of the negotiations ; 3 ) The issue of transparency of the Karabakh negotiation processes ; 4 ) The issue of Russia ’ s role in the negotiation process and conflictmanagement .
Analysing the statements made by Nikol Pashinian as an opposition representative and as an official representative ( Prime Minister ) of Armenia , it becomes evident that his declarations from being extremely categorical in the time when he was an opposition representative shifted to being more moderate and balanced as prime minister of the country . This can be seen as a result of the responsibility gained as a Prime Minister and the necessity to be diplomatic in order to ensure and protect the national interests of the country in different directions . The role of an opposition representative criticising government actions , sometimes even without being constructive due to the lack of real responsibilities and obligations allowed Pashinian to be more categorical . While holding office , because of the need to establish multifaceted foreign policy and pay attention to issues existing in various domains , Pashinian ’ s statements concerning the Karabakh issue can be characterized as more deliberate and balanced . Nevertheless , over the course of his governance , Pashinian has been prone to make categorical statements and adhere to a hard and what is more important , inconsistent line regarding the Karabakh problem that did not benefit the negotiation process .
51