Farewell gift of American ambassador to Armenians. What does it mean?

By Azernews

By Abdul Kerimkhanov

Armenia’s hopes for the support of the United States failed, as the ambassador of this country expressed the view that the current status quo in the issue of Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno Karabakh conflict is unacceptable.

“The settlement of the Karabakh problem without the return of certain occupied territories is impossible,” said the U.S Ambassador to Yerevan Richard Mills in his statement made a shocking effect in Armenia.

It also put Yerevan face to face with a harsh reality: the position of the U.S is unequivocal and categorical - no matter how much Armenia tries to keep the status quo so desired for it in the imitation of negotiations, the occupied lands will have to be returned.

For an occupant country, this is a diplomatic and political defeat, and sooner or later, Armenia will have to admit this fact.

Armenian Foreign Ministry clearly did not expect such a straightforward statement. Therefore, the Ministry had to mumble something unintelligible about the “repeatedly emphasized position of Armenia regarding the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict”, which is “reflected in the program of the country's government”.

Acting Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan did not find anything better than to get off with a banal phrase: "We clearly presented our position, and I think there will be no changes." Probably, realizing that something had to be said “to the crowd”, the “people's hero” on the upcoming elections timidly described Mills’s statement as “the outgoing message of the outgoing ambassador”.

Pashinyan should bear in mind that any ambassador in any of his statements expresses exclusively the position of his state, and the duration of his stay in the country of accreditation is absolutely irrelevant. This is about the definition of the "outgoing message of the outgoing ambassador."

In addition, this “outgoing” ambassador represents one of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing countries, whose messages should be heeded. And this message was extremely straight and clear: settlement is impossible without the return of certain occupied territories, and this is the "harsh reality" for Armenia.

If the Armenian people want a peaceful settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, then, they should agree with the only possible and correct way, which offers Azerbaijan. Baku guarantees the security of the population of Nagorno-Karabakh, self-government, the implementation of investment projects by Azerbaijan, and peaceful interaction between the two peoples. But all this is possible only under the condition of liberation of the occupied territories, because the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is not and cannot be the subject of negotiations.

One may wonder, if Pashinyan headed for the destruction of all that was associated with the previous regime, wouldn't it be better for him to prepare the Armenian people for the need to return the occupied territories as a top priority? Because only in this way he can save his people from the position of a hostage to the conflict and lead them to the “bright future” that he promised.

This is actually what the "outgoing" Ambassador Mills said.