Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan interviewed Turkish media representatives. The transcript of the interview is presented below.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan: Distinguished representatives of the mass media in the Republic of Turkey, I greet you all.

As far as I remember, this is an unprecedented occasion and a unique format. A meeting in such a format has never occurred before, and it is good that we can talk and exchange ideas today. I wish everyone successful work and am ready to answer your questions.

T 24, Barçın Yınaç —Dear Mr. Prime Minister, In Turkish, we have a saying: water to the small, speech to the big. I hope I am not the oldest in this group, but my friends asked me to thank you. As you mentioned, we are very grateful for this unprecedented occasion, and we want to start our speech with that gratitude—not only to you but also to your staff. We are thankful for everything.

Sözcü TV, Burak Tatar – I can ask the first question. Thank you again for this opportunity and the invitation. I am Burak Tatar, the director of the foreign news department of Sözcü TV. At this moment, what point have we reached in normalizing Turkey-Armenia relations? Where exactly are we? And I am interested in such a question: if you leave politics and retire one day, what kind of legacy would you like to leave behind regarding Armenia-Turkey relations, especially the South Caucasus? What kind of dream do you have regarding the region?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan – The second question is tricky to answer precisely because we still have to see what results we are recording and what results there are to summarize. Of course, if we talk about the genre of wishes, I would like diplomatic relations to be established between Armenia and Turkey, the border to be open for rail and road transport, and business ties to be direct; I mean in terms of border crossings and transport ties, because even today there is quite an extensive trade turnover between Armenia and Turkey, there are business ties. Still, this is happening indirectly.

And, of course, this conversation between Armenia and Turkey is critical, and I am often asked what results there are in Armenia-Turkey relations. Of course, as a rule, an agreement was reached in the meetings held in the format of our special representatives that the border between Armenia and Turkey, the land border, will be opened for citizens of third countries and holders of diplomatic passports. Of course, we are waiting for the implementation of this agreement. This agreement was reached in the summer of 2022, but since this agreement has not been implemented, many have commented that there have been no results in Armenia-Turkey relations.

I disagree with that because today, there is a straightforward dialogue between Armenia and Turkey. If we take into account the previous period of our relationship, this is a very significant change. The diplomatic representatives of Armenia and Turkey are in constant direct contact. And again, for an outsider, this may not be such a concrete result. Still, for me and people in the state administration systems, this is a concrete result because we were previously deprived of the opportunity to clarify each other's views; you understand, we, as a rule, found out through third countries what they think in Ankara. Ankara found out what they believe in Yerevan through third countries.

Now, there are even such situations, and in the literal sense of the word, our representatives can call and ask your opinion on this issue. This is a significant change, which is very important. It will bring results. We also understand each other better and know what difficulties and problems the parties have, what issues need additional clarification, and what issues exist where the perspectives and viewpoints differ. I consider this a significant achievement.

During this time, we have already had several meetings with President Erdogan, we have had telephone conversations, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs have communicated and continue to communicate, our Minister of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure has spoken with his counterpart, the Minister of Education, Science, Culture and Sports has also had contacts, the special representatives, who are in contact with each other. We already have concrete examples of cooperation; recently, we transferred two individuals who were wanted in Turkey or accused by the justice system to Turkey.

These may not seem outstanding achievements, but if we take stock of what we had in the previous period, this is a significant achievement. However, it is essential to note that this is a dynamic process, and, of course, efforts must be made to ensure that this dynamic does not stop and continues. This, in turn, depends, among other things, on the political will of the leaders and governments of both countries and political will; another thing is that this political will must also develop mutually.

I must also emphasize that it is also a memorable event in some sense that President Erdogan invited me to participate in the inauguration ceremony on the occasion of his election, and I decided to go to Ankara. In addition to being a purely ceremonially important event and a significant impetus, it was also an opportunity to communicate with representatives of Turkish political circles. It was also a significant event for bilateral relations. I have been listing our relations for about 5-7 minutes now. This means there is at least something to list; if you had asked me 7 years ago, I would hardly have had anything to list.

Anadolu Agency, Muhammed Tarhan - I want to ask the second question. Mr. Prime Minister, I would like to thank you on behalf of the Anadolu Agency. Dear Mr. Prime Minister, for a long time now, you have been making various and essential conclusions about the perception of history in Armenia; you have been coming up with criticisms and suggestions. As the Anadolu News Agency, we have followed your statements in the original language, Armenian. I would like you to address the reasons for paying attention to this topic. What are you trying to achieve with this among your citizens here and within the Diaspora? Thank you.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan: Any country should deal with its history; that is obvious, and I do not believe that I or the Republic of Armenia are original. We always deal with our history, but it is essential to record where, how, and for what purpose to use the knowledge that history gives us. It is also necessary to see and perceive history's messages.

You know, there is such an expression that we must learn lessons from history, but that lesson is not written on any page of history; that is, no history says that this happened, this happened, this happened, this happened, now pay attention: the lesson is as follows, the conclusion is as follows, that is, there is no such conclusion in history and it is a matter of political choice and political perception what lesson to learn and how to perceive history, how to use history. This is very important. To use history as a source of knowledge about today and the future, as a source of knowledge and information for the project of building this day and the future, or, nevertheless, to live history.

These are questions of political choice. When we discuss history and the lessons learned from it in any environment, there will always be a dispute because everyone perceives history from their political perspective. I mean within the community, even within the same community. History itself is one of the most political sciences or disciplines. Therefore, the perception of history is also a matter of political perception.

And what is the meaning, perception, or reason for that conversation? As you mentioned, I often talk about history. My main message is the following, both in Armenia and when talking to our compatriots in the Diaspora, that we need to distinguish between history and today, and we cannot perceive history. This day is the same way because this day is this day; history is history. We cannot have boundaries in the future and history because, in my understanding, the future should not be a mirror expression of history. Still, the future is an opportunity to correct or improve history. Those pages of history are the ones that we want to make better. But this is also a matter of political choice.

I want us to understand this nuance correctly: there is no absolute truth in history, and any perception of history is a political perception. This applies in general, but there are political forces that have their own recognized absolute truths about history precisely by political choice. Some societies and states have absolute truths about history, which is undeniable.

Therefore, we must use our lessons of history to serve the interests of our state today, the Republic of Armenia, the state interests, and the interests of the future. And by the way, I will tell you that, in my understanding, this conversation is ripe in Armenia and the Diaspora, but I want to emphasize again that it is not about changing history or denying history. It is about changing our applied perception of history. Why, as a resource, should history be used? What knowledge should be gained from history? This question is not easy, but it is necessary.

It is necessary, and my contacts show that this discussion is ripe. Still, this conversation must mature not only within Armenia or among Armenians but also in a regional context because that raises a question: Why do we use history so that historical confrontations become eternal, or are historical confrontations a message to build a peaceful, cooperative, regionally stable future? I am in favor of this second perception.

Hürriyet Daily News, Serkan Demirtaş - Thank you very much. I want to continue our colleague's question and adapt it more to our daily politics. Your expressions and comments, especially those related to the Genocide, find a robust response both in Armenia and in Turkey, and we read your comments and statements related to this. You also make very comprehensive statements. You also use such a concept - internal harmonization of Genocide. I want to understand what impact the issue of the Genocide has on relations between Armenia and Turkey now. Is it already a past stage, or has that issue remained in the past regarding Armenia-Turkey relations? Armenia used to pursue a policy, as we know, so that the parliaments of different countries would recognize the Genocide, etc. This policy will no longer be applied. Similarly, in the introductory part of your Constitution, there are sections where the expressions Western Armenia and Genocide are included. If the Constitution is changed in your country, will they not find a place in the new Constitution? I would like to hear your views on these topics.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan: Our official position is that international recognition of the Armenian Genocide is not among our foreign policy priorities today. This is an official formulation, but in this context, there are significant issues, the clarification of which is substantial. I mainly constantly speak about these issues in a working mode, both in Armenia and abroad, in conversations with our compatriots. It is a good opportunity to also talk about it publicly. First of all, I must say that because these discussions and speculations also take place in Armenia, and not only in Armenia, there is a talk about denial, denying or forgetting the Genocide.

This is an indisputable truth in Armenia and among Armenians. In other words, it is impossible to deny or deny it in our reality because it is an undeniable truth for all of us, but this is not what we are discussing. I want to tell you directly, if I am not mistaken, about a speech I gave recently during a meeting with Armenians in Munich when I said the following: dear compatriots, when the parliament or Government of a distant country makes a decision, we are very excited about that decision. This is the case in our reality, and it is no secret. Even in those distant countries, when they make such decisions, and the enthusiasm or joy from that decision fades the next moment, the question arises: what does that decision give us in our relations with our immediate environment? When we have tensions in our immediate environment, to what extent do these tensions contribute to stability, peace, etc., in our country, region, and so on?

It is also here that the question arises: Where and how should we focus on serving Armenia's state interests, and how and where should we emphasize what we know, including historical truths, and rely on those truths? That great tragedy occurred when there was no Republic of Armenia.

Today, there is the Republic of Armenia, an internationally recognized state, and that internationally recognized state has the opportunity to ensure the security and well-being of its citizens, but certain conditions are necessary for this. In this regard, Armenia is not an original country. And again, during the meeting with our compatriots, I emphasized that emphasis. I said, look at how much all countries and we all attach importance to peace, but peace is, first and foremost, a regional phenomenon. As a result, for example, I was talking about it with a bit of humor, presenting that our Government has had a very outstanding international achievement and we can guarantee peace for the Republic of Armenia. I apologize to our Australian colleagues for mentioning it like that. There is nothing wrong with saying it but with Australia.

In other words, we have an outstanding achievement: peace. With Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil, which we have, we are happy that we have normal relations. But we need peace and good relations, first of all in our environment and relations with our immediate neighbors, because peace brings concrete results for the security and well-being of our country. Peace is here.

Of course, I am not referring to global security because it is clear that the world has been afraid of a nuclear crisis for more than half a century. I leave those global issues aside in this context, which is, of course, also part of our agenda to the extent that we are part of the international community, but peace, the peace we need, is available to us, which is here, now. And therefore, we must think about regional peace, which is the lesson, in my perception, that we must take from history.

I also gave an interview in this hall, in this room in 2020, to one of the local Armenian television stations, which asked me whether there is such a possibility that Turkey would not be a threat to Armenia's security. My answer was that yes, we should ask that question and try to answer that question because I assume that Turkey will also ask the same question about Armenia. I also responded to that question during my activities and in the context in which it was made.

And, of course, those statements are not accepted unequivocally in Armenia. Of course, for one thing, there is no expression of Western Armenia in our Constitution; there is an expression of Western Armenia in other places, but it is not in the Constitution. I recently publicly announced to everyone on air that Western Armenia is the Armavir region of the Republic of Armenia, and specific settlements are in the Armavir and Shirak regions. And why am I making that statement? Why are there different versions of it in Armenia? Why am I making that statement? I have a practical problem, as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, in answering the question that I mentioned a little while ago because I speak very directly to the public.

Now you know what, already to our public, to the international public, those borders have been erased for reasons known to you because social networks, the Internet, all statements appear within seconds, all public statements appear everywhere within seconds, and that is why that border has already been erased, we are talking to our public, whether we are talking to the international or regional public.

My main message to our public is that we must be able to look at ourselves, understand the perception of others about us, and know what message we are giving to the region and the international public. If we provide the area and the global public a message that we wait, we will become stronger and see what territorial and other changes we will bring to the region. Naturally, everyone, or at least some of them, will perceive us as a threat. And if we hear such statements from our neighbors, we will also perceive it as a threat, which it has been. Let's not hide it: the average statistical perception in the Republic of Armenia is that Turkey is a threat to the security of Armenia. Sometimes, the vocabulary, even the political vocabulary, that is used in the Republic of Armenia is not necessarily at the official level. Still, at the official level, it can sometimes be perceived as a threat to Turkey.

We have already lost the causal connection, the point of which is the cause and the effect. Because of losing that point and because of these perceptions, we have gone through many complications and cataclysms. But now there is an opportunity to change the perception and the answer, the formulation of this question. The opportunity arose from the fact that messages were voiced by both Armenia and Turkey, indicating that there is a desire on both sides to change the wording of these issues, to change the emphasis, and to change the perspectives.

And this is why, among others, the press and experts sometimes say that there is a historic opportunity. And returning to your question, I would like to use that historical opportunity myself as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia. And I even, you know what, you are right, there is that nuance; I realize that sometimes I make statements that do not bring any benefit to me as a politician and our political party in a domestic political sense, but on the other hand, I understand that this opportunity cannot be missed.

What is that opportunity? It is an opportunity to strengthen Armenia's statehood, independence, and sovereignty. Still, it is possible to do this here, now, in this region through stability and peace through economic cooperation. We should try our best to take advantage of that opportunity. Traditionally, I want to be honest, even sometimes pessimistic; it's tough to dispel the pessimism of the pessimists because, you see, I said that an agreement was reached in 2022, which is, in fact, very important. However, still, it is not the final point, and many say, here is a simple example that an agreement was reached, but that agreement is not being implemented; you should, that is, question is addressed to me you should record the failure of that policy. I disagree with that.

Our political team and I are determined, patient, and consistent in conversation, dialogue, facts, and arguments to ensure the region is a source of stability, peace, and prosperity for the Republic of Armenia. But for this to happen, the area must also be a source of peace, cooperation, prosperity, security, and stability for other countries in the region. Of course, first of all, my concern and duty, and it is not correct. I cannot think of different countries and formulate for the interests of other countries. However, after the 2021 elections, such a point was included in our Government program; we call that point regionalization.

It is just a word, but it contains many layers; this means we perceive ourselves as a regional country when conducting our policies. This does not mean we will limit, cut off, or reduce our other relations, but we perceive ourselves as a regional country. And what is fascinating, look, when we included that thesis in the program, I noted - of course, the circumstances were not clear, but that was 2021, but why were 2022-2023 essential, that I, as the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, had meetings and discussions with the leaders of all the countries of our region during that period. No matter how strange it may seem, such a situation has not been prevalent for us.

By the way, returning to the dynamics of our relations with Turkey, I must be direct because this meeting and similar meetings will be more meaningful and help us avoid maximum ambiguities. When it was on the agenda that representatives of Armenia and Turkey should contact each other, the fact that such contact takes place could have a very complex reaction on social networks, etc. Naturally, the public's response also constrains the Government elected by that public.

Now, I consider it a significant achievement; I will mention a straightforward thing, which may seem simple at first glance but is symbolic, for example, when I have meetings with the leaders of various countries in New York. We post small materials about my meetings on my Facebook page; on the way back, I record that my meeting with the President of Turkey has been the most popular among users of our social networks, with the most views and likes. I look and am surprised. But now it may seem, well, we are discussing Facebook likes, but I say again, we need to be in the dynamics. For example, our first meeting was not like that. Still, on the contrary, even if the meeting was mainly against a negative background, why should the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia have such a meeting, etc? In other words, many complexes have already been overcome, which in practical terms are not reflected in statistics, trade turnover, etc., but are essential. And I consider it an achievement, I must say it directly. I consider it an achievement, which is also why I tell the pessimists that it is too early to record the failure of this direction and policy.

Moreover, if we move forward with these small steps consistently, calmly, based on arguments, and in an atmosphere of mutual respect, the question will not be whether there will be a settlement. The question will be when there will be a settlement. It will only be a question of time, which will, of course, be affected by various circumstances. This settlement may be postponed for another three months, six months, or a year. But today, it is a question of time, and we must patiently walk with that time and, first of all, be guided by the logic of not harm. Unless we do particular deliberate damage to this process, the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations is now a matter of time.

TRT World, Yusuf Erim—Your Excellency, if you don't mind, I will ask the question in English.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - Welcome.

TRT World, Yusuf Erim: It's about the Diaspora and Armenians living abroad. You also talked about the normalization of relations with Turkey. You mentioned that Turkey and Armenia used to communicate through a third party, but now you are talking directly without a mediator. Will Turkey and Armenia be able to cooperate in third countries in the future, mainly while you are waiting for the normalization to take place, whether it is the opening of the border or something else implementation of conditions to strengthen confidence? In particular, I would like to ask about Syria. There are many Armenians living in Syria, and Turkey has a lot of influence in Syria. Is this an area where you see an opportunity to cooperate with Turkey to be able to deliver appropriate assistance to ethnic Armenians living in Syria or Lebanon, another country where Turkey also has influence? Or collaborate on other international issues while you wait for the formalization of the bilateral settlement in the form of a document.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - We already have very concrete facts of cooperation in the international arena. And it is evident that, for example, in the elections of the OSCE Secretary General, we had a very concrete example of cooperation. That is a good example, showing that the issue you raised regarding the future is already a reality today.

As for third countries, the peculiarity is that, of course, we are naturally limited by the sovereignty of those third countries, and we are naturally not talking about interfering in the affairs of third countries. I assume your question is also relevant.

Of course, we are interested in how we can cooperate on the same issue of Syria, from which, unfortunately, some disturbing news has started to come again. Armenia and Turkey are also having this conversation. It is not very extensive, but yes, that agenda exists. Again, I say respect for all countries' sovereignty, territorial integrity, and jurisdiction. In other words, our perceptions are such.

And yes, obviously, we have an Armenian community in Syria whose fate we are concerned about. Unfortunately, due to the events that have taken place in recent years, many have been forced to leave Syria. But today, there is still an Armenian community, and we also have one in Lebanon. We are trying to see what we can do to ensure the best possible conditions for our communities in those countries, which is within our reach. And in the specific case of working with Turkey in those directions regarding Syria, we have had concrete discussions and conversations. If nothing prevents, we will also have concrete manifestations of cooperation.

Medyascope, Mehmet Tatli: Dear Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for this invitation. We have had meetings these two days. During those meetings, we were mainly told that Azerbaijan is an obstacle to relations between Armenia and Turkey. A moment ago, you spoke about the region's importance of peace and good neighborliness. We know that there are also agreements between America and Israel regarding Iran, and they are talking about the possibility of something military. How will this affect Armenia in terms of negotiations with Azerbaijan? How do you assess the policy of Trump and Israel towards Iran, and can it have any interconnected impact on Armenia-Turkey relations?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - You know, last year, we recognized the independence of Palestine, and this was also an expression of our regionalization policy. And the position of our immediate neighbors, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey, did not play a secondary role in this decision. In this regard, of course, regional situations concern and worry us - negative events, and naturally, when some positive development occurs, we try to contribute to those positive developments to the best of our ability.

Of course, we also have good relations with the United States of America. This year, we signed a document on strategic cooperation. We have good relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran; naturally, any tension in their relations worries us. And as I have already said, peace in the region is also a factor and guarantee of Armenia's well-being. This does not mean that we are talking only about peace in Armenia because, of course, I can give you the example of 2008, when events took place in Georgia. You know, the military situation related to South Ossetia, which very quickly hurt the socio-economic life of Armenia.

This is the concrete justification for that ideology of regionalization because there can't be any stability and peace in the region for a single country to enjoy stability and peace. That is not the case. And this is the fundamental change in perception that our region needs. In that sense, of course, it isn't comforting. Still, on the other hand, there are also specific signals that there is a desire to overcome differences through negotiations, peace, and diplomacy. And I hope we go with that scenario because of the stability and peace of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is essential for us, as well as for all the countries of the region. We are trying to conduct our policies with this logic, and where we have the effort to make it because, understandably, not everything depends on us, we will not hesitate to make that effort.

NTV, Mete Chubukcu - Thank you very much, esteemed Prime Minister. After the Karabakh War, the agreements between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan discussed a particular corridor. Turkey continues its position and formulation around this corridor, and Turkey calls it the "Zangezur Corridor." What is your position regarding this corridor? We also saw the "Crossroads of Peace" project here. Is it an alternative to the "Zangezur Corridor," or does it reflect your general regional approach? Thank you.

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan: You know, first of all, the expression "Zangezur Corridor" is incomprehensible and unacceptable to us because, first of all, the Republic of Armenia has nothing to do with that expression, and the fact that such an expression is used, in the Republic of Armenia it is perceived as a territorial claim against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Armenia. I had the opportunity and recently published an article on that topic, the primary meaning of which was that we are in favor of opening regional communications. First of all, we favor opening regional communications because, in reality, we are the ones who are under blockade. No other country in the region is under blockade. We have four borders, two of which are entirely closed. And this fact in itself shows how much we need and are interested in opening regional communications.

Many references include point 9 of the November 9, 2020, trilateral statement. Still, I want your attention to a significant fact: in point 9 of the tripartite statement of November 9, there is no expression of the corridor. I understand that the word corridor is used differently in other regions and international discourse, but in the context of the trilateral statement of November 9, there is a nuance; there is an expression of the Lachin corridor, which in this context is specific, that is, it is written and signed, and in point 9 of the trilateral statement of November 9, the expression corridor does not exist at all.

Moreover, there is a lot of talk about the fact that in the trilateral statement of November 9, there is a provision that the security of the transportation of passengers and cargo through the territory of Armenia must be ensured by representatives and forces of third countries. There is no such thing at all in the trilateral statement of November 9. Moreover, it is written that the Republic of Armenia guarantees the movement of cargo, vehicles, passengers, and passage. How can the Republic of Armenia guarantee security if it does not ensure security?

However, I also want to make the following observation regarding the trilateral statement: the trilateral statement cannot be treated piecemeal. For example, the tripartite statement mentions the exchange and return of prisoners of war, hostages, and other detained persons, but this issue has not been resolved yet. Moreover, it is becoming more acute due to the trials taking place in Baku; in our assessment, these are staged trials where prohibited measures, torture, and, according to our information, other prohibited measures etc. are being used. The trilateral statement mentions Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan continuously claims that there is no Nagorno-Karabakh. The tripartite statement talks about the return of refugees to Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions. Still, after the trilateral statement, the number of refugees increased, forced displacements occurred, etc. It is not a good approach to treat the piecemeal tripartite statement: to say in some places that it is no longer in force and in others that it is in force while attributing to it provisions that do not exist. After all, it is a public document.

As for communications, is the Republic of Armenia ready to ensure the connection of the western regions of Azerbaijan with the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic through its territory? Yes, of course, it is prepared. We have made a particular proposal to Azerbaijan on this topic, which, in our opinion, is not just a proposal but solves the problem in terms of railway freight transportation. We are waiting for Azerbaijan's response.

But I want to draw your attention to the fact that, in general, including in the trilateral statement of November 9, 2020, there is no separate agenda for ensuring transport connectivity between the western regions of Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan. This agenda is included in the agenda for opening regional communications in general. This means that Armenia and Azerbaijan must mutually open communications for each other, both internal, that is, from Armenia to Armenia and Azerbaijan to Armenia territory, from Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan to open communications through the territory of Armenia.

I want to draw your attention to the fact that, for example, there is no railway connection from the northern regions of Armenia to Meghri, that is, the southern region, and the railway connection passes only through the territory of Azerbaijan, that is the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic. In other words, this assumes, and therefore we say, that we are ready to provide the railway connection. We expect that a similar connection will be provided for Armenia, in particular, for the railway connection from Yeraskh to Meghri, because due to the mountainous, highly mountainous terrain, there are difficulties in having a railway from south to north through the territory of Armenia.

At the same time, this also means creating a railway connection from Azerbaijan through the territory of Armenia to Turkey and vice versa, as well as a road transport connection, including from Azerbaijan to Turkey and vice versa. This, in turn, means that Armenia can connect with the Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia via rail and road transport through the territory of Azerbaijan. Of course, in this case, the opening of the Armenia-Turkey railway is also assumed.

We are ready for these solutions. We do not understand why Azerbaijan does not respond to these solutions, and, on the contrary, attempts are constantly being made to use the topic with escalation logic. In other words, the question has an obvious answer: is the Republic of Armenia ready to provide the opportunity for rail freight transportation from Western Azerbaijan through the territory of Armenia to Nakhichevan? Yes, it is prepared. We also expect that the same opportunity will be created for the railway connection from Armenia to Armenia through the territory of Azerbaijan. We are also ready to provide road transport communication.

By the way, in my last article, I emphasized that under other conditions, in other cases, there would still be a need to make infrastructure investments, but right now, in the event of a political and legal decision, it is possible to ensure road transport communication from Turkey through the territory of Armenia to Azerbaijan through the Margara checkpoint, where the infrastructure is ready, the roads are in normal condition, to the Tegh border point, beyond which there is already a border crossing from Armenia to Azerbaijan to Lachin and from there to the depths of Azerbaijan.

In other words, right now, and I have publicly announced this, we are also ready to provide such a road connection, which expresses and is a set of these perceptions, which we call the "Crossroads of Peace." Moreover, we have specifically chosen such a name for this project so that none of our neighboring countries will be allergic to it. This is a straightforward justification of our constructive position and positioning.

"Agos" Armenian weekly, Lucien Kopar - My question concerns the Armenian prisoners of war in Azerbaijan. Ruben Vardanyan is imprisoned and is currently on a hunger strike. There is also some criticism of the Armenian Government in the Armenian press regarding these issues, saying that appropriate efforts are not being made. What do you think about this issue?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - I have already said that this situation worries us. Today, we have at least 23 prisoners, hostages, and other detained persons in Azerbaijan, and we are also trying to make every effort to resolve this issue. On the other hand, we must understand that this is happening in a situation where Azerbaijan is also using this factor with an escalation logic and for escalation purposes. And when they say that the Armenian Government is not making the necessary efforts to resolve this issue, if people say something like that, it means they are sufficiently informed. If they are adequately informed, they should take the next step and show what action the Armenian Government should take that will bring results, but the Government is not making that effort.

I generally understand this criticism and always say that as long as the efforts that the Government is making do not yield results, everyone can say that no effort is being made because these efforts are mainly made at the diplomatic level. Why? Because in this genre, public statements should be very targeted and serve a specific purpose. And beyond some instances of these public statements, they do not bring any benefit and, on the contrary, harm. I always get the example of December 2023, when 32 of our captured compatriots returned to Armenia, and until the last second, no one knew about the efforts that we were making. Until the last second, there were criticisms that the Government was not doing anything. Those people were right from their point of view because, from their point of view, the Government does something only when that problem is solved.

Until that problem is resolved, anyone can claim that the Government is not making the necessary efforts, but by 2023, it will be The official news about the return of our captured compatriots in October; until the last moment, there was a lot of harsh criticism, and that the Government was not doing anything. The Government was doing it, and this became known only sometime after those statements, and it became apparent.

I have already said that this is a painful issue. Still, there is also the following: we see that Azerbaijan, unfortunately, is not taking this issue seriously, I say again, especially in the context of the peace process, when there are constant attempts to bring additional escalation factors, including public statements about torture, visual justifications about prohibited means, which is, of course, disturbing, unacceptable, and the Government of Armenia has expressed a clear position on this issue.

İhlas Haber Ajansı, Yaprak Mutlu - Dear Prime Minister, thank you. My question concerns Armenia's accession to the European Union. Armenia has officially started joining the European Union, and a decision was made in the Armenian parliament. What stage is Armenia at now in terms of joining the European Union? How do you maintain the balance in relations with Russia and the West?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - The Republic of Armenia has adopted a balanced and balanced foreign policy. And within the framework of that policy, we are developing our relations with the European Union and, within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union, also with Russia. And as I have already said, our regionalization policy also fits into the context of those relations and that resolution. Our relations with the European Union have developed and deepened in recent years. Against the background of those developments, civil society and public representatives have submitted a draft law to the parliament with about 50,000 signatures. Our Constitution provides that citizens can submit a draft law with 50,000 signatures to the parliament for discussion, which happened, and our governing majority voted in favor. That vote in favor also fits into the logic of a balanced and balanced foreign policy.

We also do not oppose the deepening of our relations with the European Union and our relations with our other partners. Moreover, an interesting fact, if we look closely at our region, is that two of our four neighbors are candidates for EU membership. And this process also does not contradict our regionalization policy. On the other hand, we understand, and it is evident, that adopting that project does not mean membership in the European Union because it is an entirely different process. We thereby record our political interest in that process, understanding that it is complex.

On the other hand, in the context of a balanced and balanced foreign policy, we also want to have a specific menu of alternatives for our people, as I phrase it. Membership in the European Union can also happen in the event of approval through a general referendum, in the case of the Republic of Armenia, because even in that case, it is not yet known that Armenia will join the European Union. After all, the European Union member states must also reach a consensus in their turn.

We want to say it directly: we want the Republic of Armenia to overcome the foreign policy of the absence of alternatives. We want the Republic of Armenia and the people of Armenia to have options. This is not a direct choice of one of those alternatives at all, but it is a possible opportunity, another alternative opportunity for our state and our people. This is a service for our society, and more than 50 thousand signatures were collected, close to 60 thousand. It is also an expression of our democratic nature that we cannot do so if the Constitution provides such an opportunity; why should the democratic Government and the democratic majority reject that project? This is our perception, and it is an essential addition to the menu and opportunities of the people of the Republic of Armenia and the foreign policy of the Republic of Armenia, if I may put it that way.

I say again, one of our most important tasks is to overcome the policy of the absence of alternatives to our balanced and balancing foreign policy and enter a place where we can look more carefully at our region, look more carefully at the world, look more carefully at the opportunities, analyze the threats more carefully, but also see opportunities. And this is the logical continuation, I say again, including our regional policy, because I don't know what kind of would be our approach, but in our discussions and analyses, it has been of significant importance that we have noted that two of our four neighbors are candidates for membership in the European Union. Moreover, quite recently, Turkey also made a hit abandoned European policy. It also sounds like, no matter how much there are specific problems in the relations between Georgia and the European Union. Still, Georgia also states that it has not abandoned the policy of rapprochement with the European Union, and our decisions should also be considered in this context.

CNN Türk, Idris Arıkan: Dear Prime Minister, there is a process in Turkey now; no matter how many difficulties there are, we see that this process is also connected with Azerbaijan. Whoever we talked to, they said that. We want to understand what is being discussed with Azerbaijan; there are problems between Armenia and Azerbaijan that have been going on since the 1990s: there is a refugee problem, etc. In statements made by Baku, I sometimes say that these refugees must return, etc. Is this perceived as a territorial demand, the issue of the return of these people, etc? What is your perspective on this issue when Azerbaijan also raises the issue of the return of refugees?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - This is an essential addition to your question. Azerbaijan raises an issue called "Western Azerbaijan." Azerbaijan calls approximately 60-70% of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia "Western Azerbaijan" and invites us to discuss the issue of "Western Azerbaijan," calling 60-70% of the territory of the Republic of Armenia "Western Azerbaijan." We say that there is no "Western Azerbaijan" in Armenia. If we want to look for Western Azerbaijan, Western Azerbaijan or see show: Western Azerbaijan is the Kazakhs of Azerbaijan, Aghstafa, Getabey, Kelbajar, Lachin, Zangelan, Kubatlu, if I forget the name of some region, it does not mean a deliberate omission, but I mean, we can look at the map and say what Western Azerbaijan is. Here is Western Azerbaijan. There is no Western Azerbaijan beyond this line. If we want to, Nakhichevan can also be considered Western Azerbaijan geographically.

They try to justify this under humanitarian issues, calling on us to discuss some issues. Still, I repeat: They call 60% of our country's sovereign territory "Western Azerbaijan." Therefore, such an issue is not up for discussion for us and cannot be up for discussion for any country.

In general, if we are talking about refugees, as I have already mentioned, we even have a document on the return of refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh and adjacent regions. There are refugees in Armenia and the Diaspora from Nakhichevan, Baku, Sumgait, the neighboring areas of Nagorno-Karabakh, Ganja, etc. We believe these are territorial claims against Armenia, so we cannot discuss this issue.

The so-called "Zangezur corridor" is also unacceptable because it contains a territorial claim against the Republic of Armenia. Suppose we are talking about transport communication and economic communication. In that case, we are open and say yes, we are ready, as I have already said, to unblock regional, transport, and economic ties on the terms of sovereignty, territorial integrity, jurisdiction, and reciprocity of the countries. Understanding that there are complications, we are also ready for certain simplifications so that this becomes a reality and happens. We have made a specific proposal to restore railway communication and await Azerbaijan's response. Moreover, we do not publish the essence of this proposal for the simple reason that it would also not violate diplomatic correctness, that we are revealing the nature of the working document. However, in our assessment, we have resolved this issue and expect a similar solution.

Today, we have proposed a solution that resolves the issue of railway freight transportation from Western Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan through the territory of Armenia. All that remains is for Azerbaijan to agree to this solution. Moreover, since 2022, if I am not mistaken, the Government has been circulating a draft of its decision on opening three checkpoints on the border with Azerbaijan. In other words, the draft is about opening checkpoints at specific border points so that Azerbaijani vehicles, cargo, and citizens can travel through the territory of the Republic of Armenia, including to Nakhichevan. And this is our understanding of the issue.

Azerbaijan contradicts itself in what way? Azerbaijan contradicts itself by officially calling 2021 and the post-conflict period. But they speak the language of conflict every day. In other words, these two statements by Azerbaijan do not match each other. Every day is the language of conflict; every day is aggressive rhetoric n, and everyday force, if not every day, very often, very often the threat of force and the use of force and the talk of "Western Azerbaijan," which calls into question the very existence of Armenia, let's say directly, the state of Armenia. And in parallel, an invitation to discuss us, sorry, in my opinion, it is at least strange.

By the way, and it is perhaps within the framework of that peace formula that I say on the one hand that from this line, Western Azerbaijan is here; from this line to this side, there is no "Western Azerbaijan," but I understand that this talk would be incomplete if I did not say that Western Armenia is here too. This is essentially two sentences, but this is our perception of peace and our idea because if these formulas do not exist, again, there may be all sorts of different perceptions of history, historical events, etc. Still, if we want to build, making anything on a flowing region is impossible.

By the way, there is something significant. Let us not forget that the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan already have the first mutually ratified international document, which is the regulation of the delimitation commissions of our countries, which was signed by the commissions of our countries and ratified according to the procedures existing in our countries, where it is recorded that the basis, the basic principle of delimitation is the Alma-Ata Declaration. The Alma-Ata Declaration, which was signed in 1991, makes two records in the context of our issue. The first is that the Soviet Union ceased to exist, and the administrative borders of the countries of the Soviet Union became state borders. Therefore, this statement directly contradicts the de jure document between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We are committed to that agreement and are consistently and patiently moving towards peace.

T24, Barçın Yınaç - The Turkish Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State always talk about the Caucasus region in their conversations. I think you also met with Trump to discuss whether the US position can have any role in this peace process. Because if we look at it from another perspective, from a certain point of view, under the presence of Trump, according to some interpretations, many countries may prefer the so-called disorderly world. Or let's say some regional developments, conflicts, the war between Russia and Ukraine, a possible ceasefire, etc., are interpreted differently. Therefore, about that opportunity, the window that you pointed out, in your opinion, there are such factors in the world and the region, such developments that can be an obstacle to that opportunity, the window.

I want to understand if peace with Azerbaijan is true; it is not yet visible on the horizon, but the absence of Azerbaijan-Armenia relations hinders the development of relations between Armenia and Turkey. Please clarify the arguments used against the pessimists you mentioned a little more because, in the end, a settlement between Armenia and Turkey has not yet been secured. You say that it is a matter of time, of course. Some positive signals and messages have come from Turkey, and do you accept that as a basis for it being a matter of time? I do not want to repeat myself, but the more extended peace with Azerbaijan is delayed. Do you think that Armenia-Turkey relations will remain unsettled? Don't you see this risk?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan - I disagree with the formulation that Armenia-Azerbaijan peace is not visible on the horizon. There is a constant attempt to provide a smokescreen along the horizon so that this peace does not appear. Fundamental pillars of peace have been laid between Armenia and Azerbaijan. What are these pillars? I have already mentioned one.

Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed to recognize each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty based on the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration. This is what should be visible on the horizon. Moreover, this reality has been re-recorded in the agreed articles of the draft peace treaty; they have recorded that they have no territorial claims against each other and mutually undertake not to make such claims in the future. This is visible on the horizon, but now you will ask, what is the smokescreen? The smokescreen is the talk about "Western Azerbaijan" because when we have reached an agreement that we recognize each other's territorial integrity, then there should be no talk about "Western Azerbaijan."

The trials taking place in Baku are a smokescreen, which has one goal, I don't know what, at least that's our perception, to nullify the achievements that we have had in the peace process because we have been negotiating the peace process for four years and we have results. I have already said we do not record this; we are constantly focused on the peace agreement, which is, of course, an important cornerstone, but the fact that Armenia and Azerbaijan have signed an international document and ratified it in both countries is already a fact and an established reality. Moreover, we have demarcated border areas. And here is the problem: what path do we take from this point? If you were paying attention to whether we are consistent in our efforts, that path, that project is already on the table, and it remains not to be abandoned. We do not need to build anything new at this stage; we need not destroy what has been recorded. This is what we are talking about.

Yes, we also understand the sensitivities and peculiarities in Turkey-Azerbaijan relations. It is impossible to deny that, but on the other hand, I have already said that we also have processes in Armenia-Turkey relations. When I mentioned the events in Armenia-Turkey ties in the first seven minutes, I left out things I could have filled in to reach 10, 11, 12, and 15 minutes. Even though the Armenian Foreign Minister has participated in the Antalya Diplomatic Conference for two years. After the devastating earthquake, the Foreign Minister visited the disaster zone in Turkey; we sent humanitarian aid. It is good that we sent humanitarian assistance, but it is terrible that it was due to such tragic events.

But I say again, in terms of Turkey's role, Turkey also has something to choose from because we hear that Turkey is trying, or at least, maybe we are misinterpreting the message. As you mentioned, why is Turkey also discussing the issues of the South Caucasus with the United States? Because our perception is that Turkey, at least the messages are like that, Turkey is in favor of stability in the South Caucasus? We see that Turkey, both at the level of the President and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, favors signing a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And if we understand these messages correctly, at least we know that this also means a certain balance in Turkey's relations in the South Caucasus, or we know it wrong.

However, any effort contributing to signing a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan will undoubtedly be worthwhile. However, we must also consider that Armenia and Azerbaijan work in a bilateral format. We also want our international partners to know what is happening in the peace process, so we share our information.

T 24, Barçın Yınaç—Of course, everyone had the opportunity to ask one question, but if you would like to convey something to Turkish society, to convey some message, how would you want it to be presented?

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan—Yes, I would like to. What surprised me with the way you started your speech? You said you have an expression: "Water to the small, speech to the big." The problem is that we also have that expression. I must say that this is the most surprising part of my contact with Turkish representatives because during meetings, negotiations, and diplomatic discussions with various representatives, perhaps there is also such a regional custom we constantly refer to our folk proverbs.

I won't exaggerate; there have probably been three or four cases when, in conversations with Turkish representatives, either I said, I said that there is such a proverb in Armenia, and I quoted it. The Turkish interlocutor said, you know what, we also have such a proverb, or the Turkish representative said, they say it here, I also said it, but you know what, they say it here too. I was shocked when you spoke the first words; you talked about what they say in your country, "Water to the little one, speech to the old one." This expression is widely spread in Armenia, and I have heard this expression thousands of times from our elders. Having already become a parent and the status of an adult, I have used it thousands of times in my interactions with our children. This is a good message if it is perceived as a message. Thank you very much.