RA Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated at a meeting with the British media that he envisions addressing regional security issues within the peace process.

"In addition, it is very important to emphasize that now the peace process itself is not only the work on the peace agreement that is being done. It is essential to note that we have now entered the practical phase of the demarcation process, which is extremely important, including from the point of view of reducing security risks, and we must go that way. As for the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a fundamental problem has arisen because, you see, we even managed to reach an agreement in principle with Azerbaijan that we recognized each other's territorial integrity in 1991. Alma-Ata Declaration Now and 1991 The Declaration of Alma-Ata is taken as a political basis for the delimitation process. I want us to record what this means in practice.

1991 The Alma-Ata Declaration has two very important records from the point of view of the issues we are discussing. The first is that the Soviet Union ceased to exist, and this was agreed upon by the 12 republics of the former Soviet Union, that is, all the republics, except for the Baltic countries, which had already become independent at that time. Administrative borders recorded between the former Soviet republics become state borders. In other words, we now clearly know where the borders between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan pass, and it is very important that we take the Alma-Ata Declaration as the political basis of the demarcation process. This also means an important thing that we should not draw a new border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, we should only reproduce on the ground the borders that existed at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union and had a de jure legal basis within the borders of the Soviet Union.

Now, what does all this have to do with CSTO? The connection is very direct: According to the Alma-Ata declaration, the borders recorded as administrative borders are also the area of ​​responsibility of the Organization of Collective Security Responsibility. What does this mean that if that boundary is breached, the Security Mechanism of the Collective Security Treaty Organization must be triggered?

Now, what problem has arisen in our relations with the CSTO? The problem is when these limits are violated in 2021. In May 2021 and November 2022, Armenia undertook response mechanisms of the Collective Security Treaty Organization in crisis situations in the prescribed manner; these mechanisms have yet to be activated on the grounds that the borders are not delimited. The Russian Federation has recently made a similar statement that the Collective Security Treaty Organization was not activated at that time because there was no delimited border or border. Still, our partners should have recorded something important: what does that mean if there is no delimited border there? , that there is no zone of responsibility of the Collective Security Treaty Organization because there is a border, and everyone knows the location of that border; in fact, they say that we cannot show the zone of responsibility of the Collective Security Treaty Organization in the Republic of Armenia.

This, I'm sorry, means that they say, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, in fact, does not exist because it is not delimited, nor is it delimited, for example, the border between Russia and Japan. I'm sorry, I know that our partners have no such intention, but if suddenly there is such a situation, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, for example, Russia has un-demarcated borders with countries, if suddenly there is such an intention that the troops of any country enter the territory of the Russian Federation, undemarcated borders, the Collective Security Treaty Organization means should not respond in any way? This, in turn, means that there is no Collective Security Treaty Organization as a mechanism on which the member states, Russia, Armenia, and other countries can rely.

Our question is if we rely on an organization that is not worth relying on because, in principle, that organization cannot be relied on. We and others cannot rely on that organization. This is justified by the organization's reaction and the statements of some member countries. Our community tells us why you continue to be a Collective Security Treaty Organization member. And to be honest, I don't have an answer to that question," he said.

To the question of how sincere the Azerbaijanis or even the Russians are in their desire to normalize relations or if they are preparing more ground for further hostile or aggressive action, the RA Prime Minister answered:

"When discussing the diversification of relations, I said everyone is diversifying relations. Russia is also diversifying its relations in the South Caucasus, and it started it before us. By the way, the problem of the CSTO arose from there because now in the Collective Security Treaty Organization and from the position of the organization and in general, and for quite a long time, moreover, even before the war of 2020, Russia is conducting an equal policy between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

I want to record that the Russian Federation started the policy of diversification of relations in our region, and it has a specific date. Until 2012-13, Russia's policy was that Armenia was an ally of the Russian Federation in the South Caucasus. In that case, Azerbaijan is a partner within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, meaning that the Collective Security Treaty very expressly guarantees Armenia's Security of the Republic. However, in 2013, a multi-billion dollar arms deal was signed between Russia and Azerbaijan, and this is the point at which the Russian Federation began to diversify relations with Azerbaijan.

And I want to draw everyone's attention to the fact that on February 21 or 22, 2022, Russia and Azerbaijan signed a strategic partnership declaration. In essence, the statement itself also states the need for policy coordination. It is a public document, and it can be recorded that what was declared by the countries - cooperation in the security sector, consultations on policies, etc. - is happening in practice. Otherwise, the declaration would have no meaning.

In other words, why did those countries sign that declaration if they did not implement it? Especially since, before the signing of that declaration, the non-fulfillment of the obligations of the Collective Security Treaty Organization towards the Republic of Armenia was clearly recorded for at least two episodes.
Recently, a fascinating record was made when our partners from the Russian Federation said that they offered to send peacekeepers from the Collective Security Treaty Organization to the Armenia-Azerbaijan border. I'm sorry, but this statement destroys the functionality of the Collective Security Organization agreement because he should have come to the Armenia-Azerbaijan border as an ally of Armenia and not as a peacekeeper or peacemaker. Many people say that Armenia said this about CSTO, Armenia said that about CSTO, Armenia did this in CSTO, and Armenia did in CSTO. Still, Armenia needs to do something to CSTO. Someone made the CSTO; the CSTO itself did it with its statement, actions, and inaction.

And under these conditions, we can't just pretend we don't notice all that. We have practically frozen our participation in the Collective Security Treaty Organization today. If it has not crossed the line of the impossibility of warming up our involvement in the organization, but if it continues like this, I mean, the political positions that they express, it is evident that the line will be crossed. In other words, at least if we put it this way, re-participation in the Collective Security Treaty Organization will become practically impossible," Pashinyan noted.

He also spoke about Nagorno-Karabakh, noting that if our brothers and sisters forcibly displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh do not realistically have the opportunity or desire to return to Nagorno-Karabakh, everything should be done so that they remain in Armenia.

"I also want to tell you that recently, during one of the regional visits, a woman forcibly displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh came up to me and asked a question, she said: how realistic is it that we have the opportunity to return to Nagorno-Karabakh, and she said: please be a straight and honest answer.

I told him: I will answer you directly and honestly, in the current situation and the perceptions that exist in our region, and the perceptions that exist in Azerbaijan, and the perceptions that exist among the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh, in the conditions of those perceptions, I I don't consider it realistic. I said: I cannot deceive you, because if it were realistic, the deportation from Nagorno Karabakh would not have happened.

But it should also be noted that the government of the Republic of Armenia tried to do everything; moreover, in the very last days of September 2023, we were accused that, of course, there is no such thing, but it is also very important that the authorities operating in Nagorno Karabakh at that time also some circles accused us of the fact that the Armenian government does not allow the people of Nagorno Karabakh to be saved and moved to the Republic of Armenia.

What we think time was as follows. We wanted to do everything to create conditions on our part because it is understandable that it was not entirely within the scope of our decisions to do everything possible so that the forced displacement and ethnic cleansing of the people of Nagorno Karabakh would not take place. But our efforts did not bear fruit.

On the contrary, some forces wanted to drag the Republic of Armenia into the war with far-reaching goals. In response to the previous questions, I said that the Republic of Armenia is not going to wage war for Nagorno Karabakh. I noted that the Republic of Armenia has no ambitions beyond its internationally recognized borders. We hope that the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia will be restored in the demarcation process.

By the way, we have already shown our sincerity with today's decisions in the demarcation process. We have shown our sincerity because we have also done the following: we have recorded that the Government of the Republic of Armenia is ready to take steps within its jurisdiction, so that in the Azerbaijani villages, precisely about four villages: Ghezilhajil, Kheirumli, Ashagh Askipara, Baghanis-Ayrum, that in those villages, where people do not live now, the life of people there becomes possible, living becomes possible.

But we also note that as a result of the same process, it should become possible for people to live without stress in the villages of Baghanis, Voskepar, Kirants, and Berkaber of the Republic of Armenia for those people to live in their homes from families, have children without security fears.

This is the point around which the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan should be able to turn the theoretical peace agenda into a concrete, peaceful reality. It is true that we have agreed on a local issue in this area, but the quality of the implementation of the agreements on this local issue will increase or decrease the belief in the peace agenda and the possibility of peace.

It will increase faith in peace, both among the public of Armenia and the public of Azerbaijan, and in the end, it will also accumulate a certain amount of confidence. Let's face it: there is deep mistrust. I also want to say words of appreciation for the work done by the members of the demarcation commissions and the two co-chairs, who are trying to build trust molecule by molecule, which, if treated with care, can develop; if not treated with care, it can collapse. Those commissions are headed by Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan from Armenia and Deputy Prime Minister Shahin Mustafaev from Azerbaijan," the Prime Minister noted.

Nikol Pashinyan also referred to the preservation of historical and cultural monuments.

"Spiritual values ​​have physical expressions, and they are not secondary to Christianity. In general, the problem of preserving historical and cultural monuments is severe, and this problem is aggravated, especially in conflict zones. I think it is also essential here to create an atmosphere of trust in the region to overcome that hostility.

You know what? In the end, people with a negative attitude towards immovable cultural and historical-cultural monuments express hostility towards each other. In other words, it is essentially a lifeless monument. There is no need to attack and damage a stationary monument. This is how people express their hostility towards each other.

The solution to that problem is again to overcome the hostility. Of course, those monuments, especially the churches, have a history and a spirit stemming from that history; they are sanctuaries, but desecrating or damaging the sanctuaries in some way is also an expression of hostility. In other words, we can't say, OK, let the enmity remain, let it continue to deepen, but we ensure the safety of the monuments; that is not possible.

It is possible to maintain the safety of the monuments when people do not feel hostility when looking at that monument or at least feel manageable so that they do not set too high goals at once. This is a part of the peace agenda. Another dangerous term is the movement for preserving monuments, and consistency in this matter is essential and significant. Still, it is also important that this process is not used to deepen the enmity further.

In other words, this also exists and is a very subtle nuance, although objectively, because if someone's sanctity is desecrated, the feeling of hostility naturally deepens. And if we want this not to happen, we must be consistent in implementing the peace agenda because it is not a separate issue; it is the issue of this peace agenda.

I envision the solution of all issues by returning to peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan around the three fundamental principles of the peace agenda on building. It should be noted that the three fundamental principles of peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan have been recorded: the first: Armenia and Azerbaijan recognize each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty based on the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration, the second: Armenia and Azerbaijan take the Alma-Ata Declaration as a political first, for the demarcation process, and thirdly, regional communications, channels should be opened under the sovereignty, jurisdiction of countries, based on the principle of reciprocity and equality, and this third principle we have expressed in the "Crossroads of Peace" program, which is an essential tool for overcoming hostility in combination with the previous two principles," concluded the Prime Minister.