Conclusion
The analysis of Nikol Pahinian ’ s publicly declared statements has made it evident that his statements had a significant impact on the Karabakh negotiation process , which aligns with a broader academic framework stating that the publicly declared statements of the leaders have the capacity to impact the negotiation process . Taking into account the existing academic approach that the publicly declared positions of the leaders can either move the negotiation process forward and lead to the diplomatic resolution of the conflict or disrupt the negotiation process and reduce the conflict to a full-scale war , as a result of this study , it can be stated that mainly due to their inconsistencies and categorical nature and harsh , uncompromising rhetoric , Pashinian ’ s publicly declared positions have undermined and disrupted the negotiation process . A balanced approach to negotiations , stating that to reach success in the conflict resolution process the leader should keep a balance between taking a harder line to meet public expectations and messaging the adversaries about the readiness to negotiations and compromise , was not successfully applied by the Armenian Prime Minister . Pashinian did not manage to balance the messaging forthe domestic public and the adversary which in the end led to the disruption of the negotiation process and Azerbaijan ’ s willingness to turn to military means , being provoked by the messages sent by the Prime Minister and seeing no room for negotiations and compromises .
The existing idea in academia that the positions that leaders publicly declare are meant to gain public support and help them stay in office has also been revealed in the studied case . As revealed by the researchthe publicly declared positions of Pashinian to a large extent did not correlate with each other and have changed in the pre and post-war periods depending on the changing circumstances in order to justify the decisions made by the government , decrease public outrage by convincing the public that no alternatives in fact existed , and maximise the leader ’ s probabilities of staying in power . Pashinian`s pre-war publicly declared positions on the legal status of the territories of Nagorno-Karabakh , the transparency of the negotiation process , Russia ’ s role in the negotiation process and the deployment of peacekeeping troops in Karabakh to a large extent did not correlate with his later ones and were changed to maximally legitimise the actions taken and increase his chances of remaining in power .
61