For example , in the course of his political career , Pashinian made statements on the seven liberated provinces and the status of Karabakh , which went beyond the existing negotiation process , were too tough and uncompromising , and obviously did not have any real chance to be accepted by the Azerbaijani side . Pashinian made this statement in 2019 , declaring that “ Artsakh is Armenia . Period ” ( Eurasinet 2019 ).
At the core of the negotiation process are the Madrid Principles , which call for the return of the territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijani control . While declaring that Artsakh is Armenia , Pashinian in his statements did not define what he meant by Artsakh - the territory of the former Autonomous Karabakh Oblast , or all the territories liberated in the course of the 1994 war , including the seven districts surrounding the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast that , according to the Madrid Principles , should be returned to Azerbaijani control ( OSCE 2009 ).
Moreover , his statement declaring that Artsakh is Armenia came into conflict with the Madrid principle of granting interim status to Karabakh providing guarantees for security and self-governance and future determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally binding expression of will ( ibid ). It should be also taken into account that Armenia ’ s official position on the status of Karabakh before Pashinian came to power was to demand independence for Artsakh , not to make Artsakh a part of Armenia , at least officially . By stating that Artsakh is Armenia , Pashinian not only was contradicting the Madrid principles , but was also making Armenia ' s position on the status of Karabakh highly inconsistent and unpredictable .
Such statements concerning the official status of Karabakh , which were made by the Prime Minister , not only had the potential to lead the already stagnating negotiation process to a deadlock , but also showed the inconsistency of the Armenian position in resolving the Karabakh issue . This statement runs in conflict with the previously declared position of Armenia , on the basis of which the negotiation process has been built for more than two decades , and shows Armenia ' s inability to form a single consistent position for participation in the negotiation process under Pashinian . It is interesting that later , during the 44-day war , the representatives of Azerbaijan will call this statement of Pashinian the reason for the outbreak of the war , referring to the fact that such statements led the negotiation process to a deadlock and did not imply a peaceful settlement of the conflict ( Nezavisimaya Gazeta 2020 ). Nikol Pashinian to a large extent did not manage to take a balanced approach to the Karabakh issue , keeping a balance between the
52