The Armenian Prime Minister Commented on Russia’s Distance and the Lachin Corridor
The Prime Minister of Armenia suggested that Moscow has moved away from him and his government, a shift linked to actions or inaction by the Russian Federation in the South Caucasus. The remarks were conveyed through Interfax, which reported on the Prime Minister’s assessment of Russia’s current stance and its implications for regional security.
Asked about the reasons behind Russia’s apparent disengagement, the Armenian leader admitted that he does not fully understand why this distancing has occurred. He acknowledged that speculation exists but emphasized that there are concrete developments that raise concerns about Russia’s continued presence in the area.
During the discussion, he stressed that the Lachin corridor, the route connecting Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh, should remain under the supervision of Russian peacekeepers, but he cautioned that it should not fall entirely under their control. The speaker highlighted the importance of balancing security with Armenian oversight to ensure stable access for those affected by the conflict.
He presented two possible explanations for Russia’s behavior: either Moscow lacks the capacity to fully govern the Lachin corridor, or it chooses not to. He described both possibilities as problematic for Armenia, noting that each scenario carries distinct risks for regional stability and the protection of Armenian communities in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Earlier, Maria Zakharova, the official representative of Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stated that it would be inappropriate to place blame on Russian peacekeepers for incidents occurring along the Lachin corridor. This comment was offered in response to questions about Russia’s role and responsibility on the ground. The Armenian leader expressed his view that Russia has a duty to assist peacekeepers in safeguarding the rights and security of Karabakh Armenians, underscoring the need for ongoing engagement and accountability from all parties involved.
The regional dynamics were also touched upon with a note about the historical context: at one point it was discussed that Armenia and Azerbaijan would recognize each other’s territorial integrity as part of broader diplomatic efforts. That proposition has evolved through subsequent negotiations and regional discussions, reflecting the complexity of reaching durable peace and mutual recognition in a volatile environment.
In reflecting on the current situation, observers note that Russia’s exact posture in the South Caucasus remains pivotal for the balance of power among regional actors. The Armenian leadership appears to seek a clear framework for the peacekeeping mission, one that preserves Armenian autonomy in critical corridors while maintaining a credible guarantee of security for Nagorno-Karabakh residents. The broader international response to these developments is closely watched by capitals in Europe, North America, and beyond, as stakeholders weigh the implications for stability, humanitarian access, and the prospects for negotiated settlement.
As events unfold, the question of how long Russian peacekeepers will maintain influence in the Lachin corridor—and under what conditions they operate—continues to animate political discourse in Yerevan and beyond. The Armenian government has signaled its expectation that any peacekeeping arrangement must serve the legitimate security and political interests of Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh, while also enabling practical access and movement through the corridor for civilians and humanitarian efforts. The surrounding dialogue suggests a preference for a dynamic, accountable framework rather than a static, unmonitored deployment.
In synthesis, the Armenian leadership articulates a desire for a peacekeeping regime that is both effective and principled, with a clear understanding of responsibility and oversight. The discussions reflect broader questions about Russia’s willingness and ability to maintain its role in the area, the strategic aims of other regional actors, and the ongoing pursuit of a durable solution that respects the sovereignty and security concerns of all communities involved. The evolving narrative emphasizes the need for transparent communication, robust security guarantees, and a shared commitment to preventing violence while enabling normal civic life for residents of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Thus, the situation remains delicate and uncertain, with multiple layers of diplomatic and security considerations. The international community continues to monitor developments, hoping for a path that reconciles legitimate security concerns with the humanitarian needs of people living along the frontiers of Nagorno-Karabakh. The outcome will likely shape regional dynamics for years to come, underscoring the complexity of peacekeeping in a contested and volatile landscape.