The Armenian Security Council secretary, Armen Grigoryan, asserted that Russia has not met its commitments to safeguard Nagorno-Karabakh, a claim he made during a televised interview and later reflected in formal summaries of those remarks. He framed the issue as a breach of duties that Moscow undertook within a framework designed to ensure stability and protection for the Armenian population in the region, underscoring a gap between stated obligations and actual behavior on the ground. The remark highlights a longstanding friction point between Yerevan and Moscow concerning the interpretation and execution of security mandates in and around Nagorno-Karabakh.
Grigoryan argued that Russia has sustained cooperation with Azerbaijan for many years and has supplied weapons that bolster Baku’s military capabilities. He connected this to a broader pattern where regional security dynamics are influenced by external powers and their procurement choices. At the same time, he reminded audiences of the Tripartite Declaration signed on November 9, 2020, which encapsulated Russia’s explicit duties to protect Nagorno-Karabakh and its residents. The discrepancy he notes appears to be a telling sign of how commitments are applied in practice rather than in theory.
According to the Armenian official, Russian peacekeepers stationed in the area did not carry out operations in the aftermath of Azerbaijan’s large-scale offensive, a point Grigoryan used to illustrate what he sees as a retreat from the protective role originally envisioned for those forces. He described a period when rapid, decisive measures could have curbed violence or safeguarded vulnerable populations, but instead the response stayed muted. This description raises questions about the effectiveness, rules of engagement, and the political will behind the peacekeeping mission in the eyes of Armenia and its leadership.
Grigoryan emphasized that Yerevan has repeatedly warned Moscow about the worsening situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, conveying concern through channels that include official conversations, public statements, and diplomatic outreach. He portrayed this effort as persistent and constructive, aimed at preventing further deterioration and seeking a more robust, responsive stance from Moscow. The repeated alerts reflect a broader pattern of seeking assurances and timely action from Russia in the face of changing conditions on the ground.
In recent days there were additional reports about high-level discussions involving other key actors. A separate public statement indicated that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev expressed readiness to halt military operations in Nagorno-Karabakh during a meeting with a top United States official, signaling a potential opening for diplomacy and de-escalation. The interplay of these statements with the Armenian perspective underscores the volatile and multi-faceted nature of regional security, where pauses in fighting are often tied to strategic calculations and international diplomacy rather than immediate domestic considerations alone.
Observers note that the evolving situation in Nagorno-Karabakh continues to be shaped by a balance of influence among regional powers, international mediators, and local actors. The Armenian leadership’s emphasis on Russia’s obligations indicates a desire for a reliable security framework that can deter aggression and provide a credible path to stabilization. At the same time, the dynamics of Armenian-Russian relations are influenced by past cooperation, current strategic interests, and the broader geopolitical landscape that governs energy, defense, and alliance commitments in the Caucasus region.
Analysts also point to the ambiguity that often surrounds peacekeeping roles in conflict zones. Grigoryan’s remarks invite close scrutiny of how peacekeepers interpret their mandate, what constitutes failing to fulfill obligations, and how those actions—or inactions—may escalate or mitigate risk for civilians. The discussion illustrates the pressure on international missions to deliver clear, measurable outcomes while navigating the political realities that define the decisions of contributing countries and local authorities alike.
The Armenian secretary’s commentary contributes to a broader narrative about accountability in international missions. By questioning the consistency between declarations of protection and actual operations, he challenges a status-quo that many observers worry could leave vulnerable communities exposed to renewed threats. The tone of his statements reflects a call for transparent assessment, more robust engagement, and concrete steps to translate commitments into tangible protections for Nagorno-Karabakh’s residents.
As the region continues to grapple with ebbing and surging violence, Yerevan’s communications aim to keep external partners aware of the risk environment and the urgent need for reliable, enforceable guarantees. The evolving dialogue among Armenia, Russia, Azerbaijan, and international actors will likely influence upcoming discussions, diplomatic engagements, and potential agreements that seek to stabilize a volatile border area while addressing humanitarian concerns and long-standing historical grievances.