Nikol Pashinyan\u2019s public discourse surrounding the \u201cpublication of documents\u201d related to the Artsakh negotiations\u2014and the deceptive tactic (or manipulation) aimed at diverting attention from the domestic political and anti-church agenda\u2014consists of several layers. In reality, materials of different nature and legal status have been bundled together into a single \u201cpackage,\u201d creating the impression that the political parties and presidents who held power between 1997 and 2018 signed a secret assignment, while he merely \u201crevealed the truth.\u201d What are the most glaring deceptions?<\/p>\n
The concepts of \u201cdocument\u201d and \u201cworking material\u201d are mixed up<\/p>\n
Pashinyan published not signed, legally binding documents, but drafts, working papers, proposals, and interim formulations, which in diplomatic practice are never considered adopted decisions. He presents these materials as if they had been signed or approved, in order to create the impression that \u201cthe former authorities had surrendered Karabakh\u201d and that \u201cwe inherited a dead-end situation,\u201d and so on.<\/p>\n
Wordplay manipulation around the \u201cLavrov Plan\u201d<\/p>\n
Pashinyan\u2019s team repeatedly claims that Armenia was \u201chanded\u201d a document \u201cbased on Azerbaijan\u2019s territorial integrity,\u201d whereas in reality the so-called \u201cLavrov Plan\u201d did not fix Artsakh\u2019s final status within Azerbaijan.<\/p>\n
It was based on a phased logic: the return of territories surrounding Artsakh, an interim status for Artsakh with international three-tier security guarantees, the deployment of peacekeepers, and clarification of the final status through a referendum or another international mechanism. The authorities presented Russia\u2019s proposal within the OSCE Minsk Group framework as one in which Artsakh was \u201cfinally surrendered,\u201d whereas in fact it was merely proposed as a discussible option for resolving the conflict and a basis for continuing talks, not as a binding document.<\/p>\n
Chronological confusion: Mixing different years, phases, and proposals<\/p>\n
The materials \u201cpublished\u201d by Pashinyan combine elements of the 2011 Kazan process, the 2014\u20132016 Lavrov proposals, and negotiation formulations introduced by his own team after 2018. He creates the illusion that the entire 1998\u20132018 period was a single continuous process of capitulation, whereas in reality each phase had entirely different negotiation legitimizations, power balances, and international attitudes.<\/p>\n
Presenting their own formulations as \u201cinherited\u201d<\/p>\n
During the 2020\u20132023 period, it was Pashinyan\u2019s own team that adopted the formulation that \u201cArtsakh is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan.\u201d This was a political choice made by the ruling Civil Contract party in 2022\u20132023, rooted in Pashinyan\u2019s 2022 statement in Prague recognizing Azerbaijan\u2019s territorial integrity, including Nagorno-Karabakh. Yet the authorities continue to claim that the sacrifice of Armenia\u2019s, Artsakh\u2019s, and the Armenian people\u2019s national and state interests is the result of \u201cdocuments left behind by the former authorities,\u201d which in fact does not correspond to the diplomatic practice of Armenia\u2013Nagorno-Karabakh\u2013Minsk Group co-chairmanship.<\/p>\n
Portraying \u201cdeclassification\u201d as \u201ctransparency\u201d and the \u201cexposure of the opposition\u2019s false narrative,\u201d while the real aim is to strengthen weak domestic political positions and maintain the continuity of foreign political legitimacy<\/p>\n
Pashinyan presents the publication of documents with the claim: \u201cI revealed everything so that the people would know the truth.\u201d In reality, this mechanism is used to evade historical and political responsibility for defeat, to shift and distract the public debate. From a diplomatic standpoint, this is an unprofessional and trust-eroding step, as the \u201cpublication\u201d does not reveal the full reality of negotiations but only those elements that politically serve to strengthen the government\u2019s domestic position.<\/p>\n
If the former authorities negotiated territorial concessions, then they are the real culprits\u201d<\/p>\n
All governments around the world negotiate territorial exchange or return with the expectation of clear, guaranteed, and tangible outcomes. Conflicting parties in various regions (Kosovo, Moldova, Cyprus, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria) have conducted negotiations of similar substance. The issue is that Pashinyan presents this practice as if he were the first to speak the truth, while \u201cthe former authorities concealed it,\u201d whereas in reality the government floods the public discourse exclusively with narratives that serve its own interests.<\/p>\n
The \u201cpublished documents\u201d don\u2019t reflect the real negotiation dynamics<\/p>\n
In diplomacy, a negotiation working paper or draft never represents the full picture. Such papers may include informal proposals aimed at exerting pressure, verbal ideas generated during brainstorming, or working suggestions by mediators that may be \u201cput on paper\u201d but in no way carry the legal value of an agreement. Pashinyan manipulates these materials by presenting them as \u201cfinal conclusions.\u201d<\/p>\n
The overwhelming majority of the published materials were not adopted documents, were not binding, were not signed, and do not reflect the full reality of negotiations. Thus, the entire process of filling the public agenda with false theses is far more a mechanism of political propaganda than the publication of documents serving national and state interests.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Nikol Pashinyan\u2019s public discourse surrounding the \u201cpublication of documents\u201d related to the Artsakh negotiations\u2014and the deceptive tactic (or manipulation) aimed at diverting attention from the domestic political and anti-church agenda\u2014consists of several layers. In reality, materials of different nature and legal status have been bundled together into a single \u201cpackage,\u201d creating the impression that the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":3303,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-research-en"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n