Author: Ani Kharatian

. ArmInfo, Naira Badalyan. The issue of Nagorno-Karabakh will be solved as the people want. About this November 27th at Stepanavan, in response to the statement of the candidate from RPA David Shahnazaryan, declared the acting president. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

"I am the first leader of Armenia, who said the following: not a single leader of Armenia, not a single government can solve the Karabakh issue, because only the people can solve this issue. If such a solution is proposed, which, in my opinion, will be acceptable, I will discuss it proposal with the people, "said Pashinyan. In addition, as Pashinyan pointed out, only the leadership of Artsakh can present a position on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. "I and other leaders of Armenia can only negotiate on behalf of Armenia. I invited the leadership of Artsakh, the entire military personnel, representatives of the political elite, outlining in detail all the existing circumstances of the negotiation process. The more people have information about the Karabakh issue, the better there can be no secrets for the people – even, given the nuances associated with the armed forces and the diplomatic corps.

There were no such meetings before, "the leader of the My Step bloc said. Touching upon the topic of possible concessions, Nikol Pashinyan said: "I have publicly said several times that it is unacceptable when international representatives come and ask: is Armenia ready to make concessions? I said that Armenia will answer this question when the international community asks the same question Azerbaijan, "said Pashinyan. He also said that his main goal is to make the country's armed forces the most efficient in the region. "In addition, I am the first leader of Armenia, who does not want to involve the army in politics. I gave a clear indication to the Minister of Defense that the servicemen should act at their own discretion during the vote," Pashinyan assured. It should be noted that today during the press conference, the former head of the RA National Security Ministry, the ex-member of the board of the Armenian National Movement opposition party, and now the deputy candidate of the ex-ruling Republican Party (RPA), David Shahnazaryan said that the current government Armenia represents a greater threat to Artsakh than Azerbaijan with all its armed forces. According to Shakhnazaryan, the statement of Sasun Mikaelyan, a member of the election block "My Step" that the victory of the people in the revolution is more important than the Artsakh liberation war, is part of Nikol Pashinyan's political program according to the formula "Power in exchange for Artsakh". Thus, according to him, through the mouth of Sasun Mikaelyan, what was the political goal of the current government was expressed. "I will not stop repeating that the so-called revolution has become an absolute evil for two Armenian states," he stressed. -v–

Ani Mshetsyan. The first results of Nikol Pashinyan's foreign policy are worrying, the Former Minister of Defense of Armenia Vigen Sargsyan wrote on his Facebook page. He, in particular, noted that 6 months, especially in the "post-revolutionary" conditions, is a short period. They can still point to the "old" authorities and "their conspiracies'', the society can still be asked for indulgence, referring to the "inexperience of the team.

The former minister of defense also noted that everyone is familiar with the feeling when after a few minutes it becomes obvious that the film being watched becomes uninteresting. "Unfortunately," New Armenia's" foreign policy resembles such an uninteresting and annoying film. I write these words to Pashinyan against the background of his American fiasco, which became clear during presidential Adviser on National Security John Bolton's visit to Armenia. For the first time the goal of Armenian – US dialogue was informing of one side about the benefits of the other rather than mutual interests. It seemed that Bolton was not an Adviser to the US president, but an adviser to the Prime Minister of Armenia, who turned out to advice what to do and what not to do. It was only unclear why the Prime Minister did not recall the statement made by him in Moscow – not to interfere in each other's internal politics, "the former Defense Minister wrote.

Sargsyan also summarized the visit of Bolton. "Armenia should get rid of its '' historical patterns''. Bolton actually repeated not only the statements of Azerbaijan that Armenia itself was to blame for its blockade, but justified Turkey for closed borders, for Ankara's support for Azerbaijan in the Karabakh issue. In addition, he also noted that Armenia not only should not expect assistance from the United States, but even investments, "Sargsyan stressed. As the former Minister of Defense noted, in the best case, investments may come from representatives of the Armenian community of the United States.

Sargsyan also wrote that in the words of Bolton that Armenia, finally, should become self-consistent and independent, bearing in mind the relations of Yerevan with Washington. Obviously, this concerned the strategic relations of Armenia with Russia. "The United States does not deny that they sold and will probably sell weapons to Azerbaijan. If you wish, you can switch from Russian weapons to American ones, but the US is absolutely not interested in how much it will cost the Armenian budget. As for Iran, Armenia has no alternative than applying US sanctions. A statement was made from the territory of Iran, a neighboring and friendly state, that the circle around Iran is narrowing. Of course, this is a very tactful reminder of partnership relations with Armenia, "the former defense minister noted .

Sargsyan stressed that from the point of view of diplomacy, it is important not only the content of statements, but also circumstances such as time and place, and until recently, the partners of Armenia were very attentive during meetings with Armenian colleagues in the territory of Armenia, as well as in the matters of statements related to neighbors and allies of the country. "What exactly has freed their hands in" New Armenia "? I hope not "black counter-revolutionaries ", and not" proud people "," the former defense minister said.

The former minister said he did not know what was said behind closed doors. But, based on what is in the open press, "one can guess and be horrified by how in just 6 months we have turned from a country leading a balanced policy into a country in which foreign diplomats do not even think about the interests of Armenia. " " I don't think that Bolton's wording has anything to do with the Karabakh negotiation process. Usually these statements are made before the meeting and even before the visit. Consequently, these approaches reflect the position of the United States in response to the change of power in Armenia and the new foreign policy arising from it, "the politician noted. Sargsyan said that being involved in all international meetings of the Armenian leadership for 15 years, he does not remember a single case when American partners would call into question the strategic partnership between Armenia and Russia. "But I remember the special call of Vice President Joe Biden to President Sargsyan, in which the latter noted that the United States is receptive to the decision of Armenia to enter the EAEU ", Sargsyan stated. "What gives Bolt reason to think that it is possible to speak with Armenia in the language of" concessions,in exchange of open borders. "I hope not the speech of Prime Minister's wife Anna Hakobyan on the Artsakh border. Bullets cannot be turned into jewels, bullets and weapons are needed at the border, they are needed for the state , independence and security, even in the safest country, especially in our region. Challenges to our security do not begin with Artsakh and do not end there, "the former minister said.

As for the American and Russian weapons, the former defense minister noted that Russian weapons, which are not inferior in quality to the American ones, Armenia bought from Russia at domestic price, being a CSTO country on favorable terms, besides the country has the necessary technical base for weapon service. According to the former Minister of Defense, in order to properly apply for weapons, it is advisable to buy them from one country. "And another equally important question regarding Russia is why should it give or sell weapons to Armenia at a reduced price if Armenia purchases it at a market price in another country? I have no doubt that Bolton was very aware of all this," Sargsyan said.

According to the former minister, in the words of Trump's representative there was not an offer to Armenia to buy American weapons, but an excuse for selling weapons to Azerbaijan. And in matters of servicing American weapons, Azerbaijan will be helped by Turkey, which has a lot of experience in this. "Meanwhile, I wonder if Bolton will call on Azerbaijan to become 'independent', implying its strategic cooperation with Turkey," Sargsyan asked.

The former minister stressed that the US sanctions against Iran are not the first in these relations, and Armenia has always managed to find a balance while maintaining friendly relations with Iran and the requirements of international law. "The American partners always approached our vital interests with understanding. From the statements on the visit, and not only, we learned that in the near future Armenia could be involved in anti-Iranian policy, which poses a threat not only to Armenia, but also to the entire region" Sargsyan said, associating with this the statement of Pashinyan about the revelation of drug dealers in Syunik.

Sargsyan stressed that representatives of the American administration were often stingy regarding the assessment of the Armenian Genocide. "Sometimes they called on Armenia to continue efforts to restore relations, for which they highly appreciated the efforts and political will of the Armenian leadership. But instead of calling on Turkey to recognize its history, as President Obama did in Ankara, Bolton's call on Armenia to break free of "historical patterns" is a new and undesirable phenomenon for us in the US policy. I am sure that the Armenian communities of the USA and the lobbyist structures will mark this, "the former minister stressed, wondering what was Armenia's interest in Bolton's visit to Armenia. "We should ask Nikol Pashinyan about this. I could not see it in the public part of the visit," Sargsyan stressed.

"Mr. Pashinyan does not put blame for the failures in foreign policy on those involved in this field. They are not revolutionaries and not counter-revolutionaries. When taking important decisions, they should be listened to, and not the adventurers who build barricades on the streets and divide society into black and white. The mistakes made in this area are difficult to overcome. Basically, you are responsible for foreign policy. In this area you are constantly destroying what has been created for decades. If you don't immediately correct the situation, the possibilities of professionals will continue huddle, as in the last six months. Of course, it's good that you are trying to be accessible to people, but your ministers, ambassadors and advisers are people too. Receive them and listen to them, "concluded Sargsyan.

Turan – ArmInfo. The adviser to the US President on national security issues in an exclusive interview with the Turan news agency and the Azerbaijani service of Voice of America spoke about sanctions against Iran, the situation around the Treaty on the Elimination of Medium and Small- Range Missiles, security issues in the South Caucasus, the Karabakh conflict and human rights.

Question: On the day of your visit to Baku, October 24, it was 26 years to the adoption by the US Congress of the 907th amendment to the Act on the Support of Freedom, which limits state assistance to Azerbaijan in connection with the Karabakh conflict. Russia, using this, sells weapons to Azerbaijan. Thus, it receives advantages over the West in matters of trade, including the supply of military equipment. However, during the antiterrorist operation in Afghanistan, the amendment was suspended, but so far it has not been canceled. Is it not time, its complete elimination?

John Bolton: Regarding the 907th amendment, I can say that this amendment was adopted exclusively by Congress. This question has nothing to do with the executive branch of the United States and we have witnessed how several presidents of America have already suspended its action. And we also considered the question whether the existence of this amendment corresponds to or does not correspond to the situation. Taking this opportunity, I want to say that during my visit to Azerbaijan we exchanged views on the conflict, including with Mr. President. In general, we discussed a number of issues of importance to the regional and international agenda.

Question: Experts regard the latest statements around the Treaty of Intermediate-Range and Short-Range Missiles as the beginning of a new arms race. This is confirmed by the demonstration of a new generation of rockets by the president of Russia this year. Does the United States take into account the security of the post-Soviet countries in the militarization of Russia?

John Bolton: South Caucasus is always a significant region for the United States. In particular, this concerns Azerbaijan. Because Azerbaijan has borders, both with Russia, and with Iran. The United States is withdrawing from the said treaty in the light of Russia's violation of this agreement. We know that the Russian Federation, in general, having gone beyond the scope of this agreement, has created such types of weapons that can strike at the states located around it. I would like to emphasize that the risk to international security and stability is not the US withdrawal from the Treaty on Medium and Small-Range Missiles, but Russia's gross violation of this agreement.

Question: The lessons of history show that the exacerbation of tension in Russia and Iran directly contributes to the growth of threats to the countries of the South Caucasus. What do you think about the possible threats to the South Caucasus in the context of the expansion of sanctions against the Russian Federation and Iran?

John Bolton: There are various reasons for the US withdrawing from the agreement on Iran's nuclear program. One of them is that the Iranian side has not shown any commitment to this agreement from a strategic point of view. We saw the ineffective participation of Iran in this agreement. At the same time, Iran's production of long-range missiles, its support for international terrorism, as well as military operations in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, also questioned Iran's compliance with its nuclear program agreement. I emphasize again that threats to regional and international security and stability are Iran's demonstrating misconduct with regard to this agreement. We want through economic pressure to encourage Iran to change its behavior.

Question: Expansion of US sanctions against Iran – the introduction of bans on international payments and oil trade may lead to the creation of a new source of tension in the region after Syria and Iraq. In Iran, where tens of millions of Azerbaijanis live, a new hotbed of tension can become a factor affecting the security of Azerbaijan, with which Iran has a long border. Were these factors discussed at meetings with Azerbaijani officials?

John Bolton: Yes, we discussed these issues with President Aliyev and the foreign minister. Our goal is to ensure the maximum use of sanctions against Iran, and at the same time, not to cause unnecessary harm to our friends, and Azerbaijan in this series. Yes, we are planning an even greater expansion of the existing sanctions. At the same time, we are considering the application of new sanctions. Our goal is to maximize the effect of sanctions on Iran. At the same time, we want to act in such a way that our friends do not experience the damage they do not need.

Question: Were human rights and democratic reforms in Azerbaijan a subject of discussion during your visit? The Amnesty International organization in its appeal asked you to raise the issue of human rights and democracy before the government of Azerbaijan. Is the resumption of the dialogue between the USA and Azerbaijan in the field of human rights and democracy that has been revitalized and faded since 2006? Was your agenda on the issue of restoring the activity of the Baku Bureau of Radio Azadlig?

John Bolton: Yes, we discussed certain issues with Mr. President in the field of human rights. I want to note that the question of how important the United States is to human rights is not a secret. I would like to recall the words of Mr. President Trump that we respect sovereignty with great respect and do not intend to lecture any country from this point of view. You asked about the office of Radio Azadlig in Azerbaijan. That is, have we asked about it? No specifically this question was raised. I remember how my wife worked on this radio in due time.

Question: Have you brought any new ideas on the Karabakh settlement? Did you have an exchange of views in Russia on the settlement of conflicts in the South Caucasus? John Bolton: We had an exchange of views on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. At the same time, before the visit to Azerbaijan in Moscow, we discussed with the Russian officials the situation in this region. The United States is co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group, and therefore we, given the strategic importance of the region, are supporters of achieving a better understanding between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Working in this direction, we will continue our efforts within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group.

Question: The United States is the author of the Dayton Accords, which put an end to the war in the former Yugoslavia. How do you think, is it possible to use the experience of the Dayton Accords to force the parties to peace in the Karabakh conflict?

John Bolton: The Karabakh conflict is unique in itself. Each conflict has its own characteristics. Therefore, I would not like to draw parallels with scenarios of various conflicts. Simply, the United States during the period after the collapse of the USSR is trying to promote the achievement of a peace agreement between the conflicting countries on the terms of protecting their sovereignty. Regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, I would like to stress once again that the United States is one of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. I came here not to change the policy of the United States, but to better understand the situation.