fields , that we are ready to return these lands in the name of peace ” ( Pashinian 2018 ).
In his book Nikol Pashinian has stated that territorial concessions should be made by Armenia in order to reach peace . This comes into conflict with his latter statements about the unity of Armenia and Karabakh and the essential role of the Karabakh lands for Armenia . As can be seen Pashianian ’ s position on the territorial concessions has numerously changed over time from the narrative that “ we do not need the fields ” in the early times of him being an opposition leader to the narrative that the Nagorno-Karabakh territories are “ necessary for our survival as a state ” in the times when he was trying to gain power and public support and in the first years of him being a newly elected Prime Minister and , finally to the narrative that the territorial concessions were the only option . Based on the analysis conducted it becomes evident that the publicly declared positions of Nikol Pashinain on territorial concessions can barely be characterized as consistent ones . His nationalistic rhetoric on Nagorno-Karabkh being an indispensable part of Armenia , in the revolutionary period and at the early stage of his Prime Minister career before the 44-Day Karabakh war , strongly communicated to the Armenian public to gain support but not being backed up by any talks with the Azerbaijani side has given Azerbaijan the room to blame Armenia for the unwillingness to negotiate and resolve the issue at the negotiation table , creating a possibility for Azerbaijan to turn to violence .
In the pre-war period Pashinian ’ s statements about the need to change the format of the negotiations , bringing back to table the representatives of Artsakh can also be considered as a cause of the disruption of the negotiation processes as they were also breaking the worked out pattern of the negotiations held and were perceived by the Azerbaijan ’ s government as categorical and unacceptable ones . This position taken by Pashinian actually implied that the negotiation process should de facto start from scratch undermining the previous negotiations held . The OSCE Minsk group released a statement urging the sides to refrain from “ demanding unilateral changes to the format without agreement of the other party ” ( OSCE , March 9 ).
However , Pashinian was persistent in declaring that Artsakh should become a full-fledged negotiator stating that :
“ Only the authorities of the Republic of Artsakh can speak on behalf of the Republic of Artsakh , as the Republic of Armenia can speak on behalf of the Republic of Armenia . The Republic of Armenia is a party to the conflict and will speak for itself on its behalf ” ( Artsakh Press 2018 ).
55