Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
News

Pashinyan calls for de-escalation in response to harsh statements by Aliyev

10 January 2025

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, in an interview with Armenpress, responded to harsh statements made by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, and appealed for de-escalation saying that Armenia will remain committed to a strategy for the implementation of the agenda of peace.

Aliyev had accused Armenia of posing a fascist threat that needed to be destroyed. In an interview with Azerbaijani television channels on Tuesday night, Aliyev said: "Armenia is effectively a source of threat to the region. The independent Armenian state is essentially a fascist state. For nearly 30 years, this country was governed by bearers of fascist ideology, and they shaped the state in their own image. Therefore, fascism must be eradicated," he added. "It will either be eradicated by Armenia's leadership or by us. There is no other way."

In the interview with Armenpress Pashinyan responded by saying that Baku was attempting to form “legitimacy” for escalation in the region and that aggressive statements were being made with an expectation for an equally aggressive response by Yerevan, which would enable Baku to make more aggressive statements and claim a “justification” for new escalation in the region. Pashinyan said that Armenia will not take that path and will remain committed to the strategy of peace while applying the language of dialogue and non-aggression. “We will continue to be focused on delimitation, conclusion of the text of the peace treaty, implementation of the Crossroads of Peace project, humanitarian issues, including the issues of determining the fate of the missing persons”, Pashinyan stated.

Pashinyan said that the agenda of peace was about discussing and addressing negative perceptions about each other and that Armenia has proposed solutions regarding two outstanding articles of the peace treaty, and in case of a positive response by Azerbaijan, was ready to sign the treaty. Azerbaijan has said that Armenia must change its constitution to remove what Baku says are claims to its territory before a treaty can be signed. Armenia says it makes no claim on Azerbaijani lands. Aliyev said that his country wanted no return to war, but that Armenia, which is several times smaller than Azerbaijan in both population and area, was rearming for conflict.

Armenpress also asked Pashinyan to respond to the Azerbaijani President’s claims about Armenia's armaments leading to new tensions in the region. Pashinyan said there is not a single element of illegitimacy in Armenia’s agenda of military reforms and that Armenia recognises the territorial integrity of all its neighbors, including Azerbaijan, and expects the same from Azerbaijan, meaning, a clear and unconditional recognition of the territorial integrity of Armenia.

Pashinyan stated: “I have also announced that we do not have an objective of militarily returning more than 200 square kilometers of occupied territories of the Republic of Armenia, because the delimitation process allows us to address this issue through peaceful negotiations. With that being said, no one can dispute the right of the Republic of Armenia to have a defensible army.  Regarding concerns about armaments, we also have concerns about Azerbaijan's armaments, and we have heard their concerns. This is the reason why we proposed to Azerbaijan to form a mutual arms control mechanism and we are waiting for their response”.

Concerning Azerbaijan’s accusations against the Armenian military of violating the ceasefire on the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, Pashinyan denied the accusations and said Armenia had proposed to develop a joint mechanism for ceasefire violation investigations to jointly investigate each report about ceasefire violations, and draw joint conclusions. We are waiting for Azerbaijan's response. Pashinyan concluded.

In the interview, Pashinyan also elaborated on the Crossroads of Peace that implies the opening of all transport connections in the region, including Azerbaijan-Azerbaijan through the territory of Armenia, and Armenia-Armenia through the territory of Azerbaijan. Pashinyan said: “I already had the occasion to announce that we have made a very concrete proposal to Azerbaijan on opening the Yeraskh-Sadarak-Ordubad-Meghri-Zangelan railway. It is more than a proposal, it is a concrete solution to concrete issues, and we are waiting for Azerbaijan's positive reaction, after which the agreement will be documented on paper and we will commence the construction of our sections of the railway”.

In the interview on Azerbaijani TV, Aliyev said that Azerbaijan would secure the Zangezur corridor, a route connecting the country's mainland with its Nakhchivan exclave and close ally Turkey. Armenia says it is not against unblocking transport routes across its territory, but must retain control of any such corridor.

source: commonspace.eu with Reuters, ArmenPress and agencies

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut