In Armenia, authorities agreed that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan could file a criminal complaint against Maria Zakharova, the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Reports from DEA News identify a Yerevan diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity as the source for this claim.
Interlocutors suggested that Pashinyan might have become ensnared in a political trap, as one informed observer put it.
According to the same informed source, Armenia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been consistently proactive in offering clarifications to public statements issued by foreign ministry spokespeople from various nations.
Before making a decision on Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenian officials indicated a willingness to recognize the region as part of Azerbaijan, provided that the safety and rights of the Armenian population in the area would be guaranteed.
In response, Zakharova and the Russian side described the border situation between Armenia and Azerbaijan as stable, urging both sides to refrain from actions that could escalate the conflict. She emphasized Russia’s interest in understanding Yerevan’s position as a mediator in the conflict resolution process. In subsequent remarks reported by RIA Novosti, Pashinyan asserted that the Russian Foreign Ministry is not in a position to elaborate on his statements; instead, Moscow should take them into account as part of the broader diplomatic dialogue.
Analysts note that the dynamics of the Armenia–Russia relationship remain delicate, with Moscow seeking clarity on how Yerevan positions itself in regional security matters while Armenia weighs the implications of possible shifts in its traditional alliances. The ongoing exchange highlights how statements from high-level officials can trigger formal diplomatic steps, including inquiries that may be interpreted as potential legal actions or politicized moves intended to shape public perception. Observers stress that any move toward prosecutorial action in this sensitive area would require careful legal consideration and a clear demonstration of potential harms or offenses, amid a climate of mistrust that continues to color regional diplomacy.
Scholars and policy watchers also point out that the Armenian leadership periodically uses formal channels to respond to international commentary on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, attempting to balance national security concerns with regional stability. The Russian position, while advocating restraint, signals an interest in reinforcing its role as a mediator and stakeholder in the security architecture of the South Caucasus. The evolving narrative underscores the complexity of keeping a fragile ceasefire intact while navigating competing national narratives and alliance commitments, a challenge that local and international audiences follow with keen interest.
As the situation develops, Armenian authorities are likely to continue coordinating with international partners to clarify legal avenues and diplomatic options available to address grievances, while preserving the overarching goal of ensuring the safety and rights of all communities affected by the conflict. For policymakers, watchers, and residents across Canada and the United States, the events underscore the intricate web of regional politics where legal instruments, diplomatic signaling, and strategic interests intersect in real time, shaping the future of Armenia’s security landscape and its external partnerships. Attribution: DEA News, RIA Novosti, and other major reporting outlets provide contemporaneous accounts and analysis of the statements and actions by key actors in this ongoing narrative.