Thus , it can be stated that performing as an opposition representative , Pashinian turned to criticising Russia ' s actions in terms of the Karabakh conflict , and the strategy was primarily chosen as it give Pashinian a possibility to discredit the in-action government that was strongly relying on Russia in terms of Karabakh issue and was maintaining close ties with the Russian government . Pashinian`s criticism of Russia ' s role in the Karabakh conflict resolution process helped him to gain the support of the public that lost trust and was disappointed by Sargsyan ’ s government which was closely cooperating with Russia . At the same time Pashinian ’ s messages on Russia sent to the public reached also the Russian government being dissatisfied by the existing rhetoric and the Azerbaijani government that saw the issues in Russian-Armenian relations as an opportunity to develop its relations with Russia and prevent Russia from supporting Armenia with military , diplomatic and economic means . However , Pashinian has evidently changed his position on Russia ' s role in the Karabakh process stating the importance of Russian-Armenian partnership as soon as he came to power as a Prime Minister of the country . Being in a position of an official leader of the country , Pashinian changed his publicly expressed views on Russia ’ s role in the Karabakh process , gaining the real responsibility for the security and wellbeing of the country and taking into account the geopolitical realities , already existing agreements and etc . that for more than two decades have shaped the Karabakh process .
Thus , it can be stated that Pashinian ’ s inconsistent statements made on a number of issues such as the status of Karabakh , the format of negotiations , Russia ’ s involvement and others discussed above , uncompromising statements and harsh rhetoric applied have significantly disrupted the negotiation process before the 44-Day War and , to a large extent did not correspond to the real actions and decisions made by the Pashinian government and Pashinian , in particular , after signing the peace treaty that has caused an intensive public outrage and disapproval . Even though in some cases , such as participation of the Artsakh representatives in the negotiations process , Pashinian remained quite consistent even in his post-war rhetoric , still on a number of issues his positions declared in the pre-war and war period diverged from those declared in the post-war period . Most of the shifts in the positions declared by Pashinian were aimed at gaining support of the public and political power in the country and staying in office .
60