The Armenian Republican Party Responds to Karabakh, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Territorial Questions
The Armenian Republican Party (RPA) argues that the unresolved Karabakh dispute cannot be disentangled from Armenia’s broader relations with Azerbaijan, nor can Nagorno-Karabakh be treated as a separate, inconsequential issue. In reacting to remarks attributed to Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, the RPA leadership described any attempt to separate these strands as a betrayal of the national interest and a move that could threaten Armenia’s security through a tacit capitulation to external pressures. This assessment was reported by Sputnik Armenia, underscoring how party leaders frame the question as one of sovereignty and regional stability.
Previously, Pashinyan indicated that Yerevan would consider recognizing Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity should Baku acknowledge Armenia within the historical borders of the Armenian SSR. In this framework, the Armenian side would be prepared to accept Azerbaijan’s claim to its proclaimed borders in exchange for a reciprocal recognition of Armenian borders and a durable peace. This line of thinking has fueled a debate about what kind of compromise would be acceptable to Armenia and how such an arrangement would be perceived by regional partners and international mediators.
The RPA, led by former Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, emphasizes a historical vantage point. It notes that during the era of the Azerbaijan SSR, two political entities existed on the land later claimed by the modern Azerbaijani state: the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (NKR). The party argues that, according to the Azerbaijani constitution, Azerbaijan is not the legal successor to the Azerbaijan SSR, and therefore the NKR has never been lawfully incorporated as part of Azerbaijan. This position reflects the party’s insistence that the legal and historical status of Nagorno-Karabakh remains a central element in any realistic settlement, and it warns against presuming a simple territorial transfer that disregards the established claims and identities involved. The RPA maintains that Armenia has never pursued territorial ambitions against Azerbaijan and has consistently affirmed Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity in principle, a point the party says should guide any future negotiations and international mediation efforts.
In reiterating its stance, the RPA argues that Armenia’s security and regional stability depend on a framework that respects both sides’ core positions while seeking a viable, verifiable path to peace. The party contends that concessions must be grounded in a durable recognition of realities on the ground, including the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, its people, and their political aspirations, alongside clear international guarantees and a credible mechanism to monitor compliance. The discussion, as described by the RPA, is not merely about lines on a map but about the lived experience of communities affected by the conflict, including displacement, governance, and the prospect of sustainable coexistence in a peaceful regional order.
Recent statements by Pashinyan underscored that Armenia seeks to secure a lasting peace for itself and for the broader region. The Prime Minister stressed that genuine peace will be possible only when the international community recognizes practical borders that exclude Nagorno-Karabakh as a separate territorial entity, while respecting the sovereignty and security concerns of Armenia. This articulation reflects a broader strategy aimed at clarifying Armenia’s position so that future negotiations are anchored in mutual recognition, stability, and security guarantees rather than unilateral concessions that could undermine regional balance. The process, according to Armenian officials, requires not only bilateral dialogues but also robust backing from international organizations and allied states to ensure that any settlement is verifiable and durable.
Observers note that a climate of mutual distrust has become a defining feature of the relations between Yerevan and Baku. The RPA highlights that such distrust can complicate the search for common ground, pressing for a constructive approach that reduces the risk of misinterpretation and miscalculation. In this view, building confidence measures, transparent communications, and verifiable commitments are essential to moving beyond cycles of suspicion toward a stable peace. The discussions remain highly sensitive, with regional actors watching closely how Armenia and Azerbaijan frame their red lines, interpret historical narratives, and negotiate the contours of any future settlement. The overarching aim, as articulated by Armenian leaders, is to prevent renewed conflict and to foster a climate in which the rights and security of all communities in the South Caucasus are safeguarded. The public discourse continues to revolve around how best to balance historical legitimacy, international law, and the practical needs of ordinary people who live with the daily realities of the conflict and its aftermath.
Ultimately, the path to peace in the region hinges on clear principles, steadfast commitments, and credible guarantees that all sides can trust. Armenia seeks a future where security, sovereignty, and prosperity are not contested by abrupt shifts in policy or opportunistic moves but are upheld through sustained diplomatic engagement, transparent processes, and shared responsibility among neighbors and the international community. As events unfold, each side remains focused on securing a durable settlement that acknowledges legitimate grievances, protects minority rights, and paves the way for normal relations and cooperative development. The dialogue continues with cautious optimism, guided by a vision of regional serenity that would allow people on both sides to build a more stable and prosperous future for the South Caucasus.
Related posts:
Karabakh Conflict: Ceasefire, Solutions, and Genocide Risks Tension at the border and the Nagorno-Karabakh situation Nagorno-Karabakh Tensions and the Peacekeeping Dilemma: A Regional Overview Armenia and Azerbaijan Seek Path to Peace and Territorial Clarity A Century of Conflict: Armenia and Azerbaijan and the Quest for Peace Nagorno-Karabakh tensions flare as Azerbaijan conducts operations Geopolitical Shifts in the South Caucasus and the Turkey–Azerbaijan Axis A Renewed Clash in the Caucasus: From Empire to Modern Security Dynamics Armenia weighs Karabakh refugees, governance, and security amid regional ceasefire shifts Armenian Opposition Plans Protests Over Pashinyan’s Territorial Integrity Remarks Armenia, Nagorno-Karabakh Leadership, and Regional Peace Prospects {“title”:”Armenia and Azerbaijan Negotiations and Regional Security Dynamics”}