Lavrov in Armenia: Presser After Talks with Pashinyan and Mirzoyan

Foreign Minister Lavrov made a working visit to Armenia for talks with Prime Minister Pashinyan and Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan. At this juncture it’s hard to say if Pashinyan remains on the sharp end of a picket fence or has dismounted back to the CIS, EAEU CSTO side, although some very persuasive facts would say the latter is the case. After the presser, Lavrov met with teachers and students of branches of Russian universities, the expert community and activists of the youth wing of the Eurasia Autonomous Non-Profit Organization, a 45-minute performance that will be covered in a separate report. Now for Lavrov’s remarks and media Q&A:

Dear Ararat Samvelovich,

Dear Colleagues,

I would like to once again thank our Armenian friends for the warm welcome and hospitality.

Our talks are taking place in accordance with the agreements reached by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, who agreed in the autumn of 2024 to restore the rhythm of contacts in all areas.

In accordance with this agreement between our leaders, the Foreign Ministry is holding the second meeting of foreign ministers this year. Between the January meeting and today's visit, consultations were held between our deputies. Further contacts at various levels between the foreign ministries are planned, on which we signed a plan of consultations today.

I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank our Armenian friends and personally Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan for their participation at the highest level in the events in Moscow on the occasion of Victory Day and for the fact that Armenia, like the Russian Federation, reveres and cherishes the memory of the Great Victory.

A large-scale procession of the Immortal Regiment, the Garden of Memory campaign, and dozens of other events, including thematic concerts dedicated to the anniversary of the Victory, took place here [in Yerevan].

Today we began our visit with the laying of a wreath at the Eternal Flame at the Mother Armenia monument. This once again emphasizes our common attitude to the achievements of freedom, independence and justice, thanks to the efforts of our heroic ancestors.

We reviewed in detail the implementation of the agreements reached at the top level, including such areas as trade and economic cooperation, on security issues and the expansion of mutual diplomatic presence, in particular, the opening of the Russian Consulate General in Kapan. Preparatory work is underway.

We are interested in the all-round development of sister city relations between cities, municipalities and between Russian regions and regions of Armenia. As Ararat Mirzoyan said, the next interregional forum is being prepared. This will further consolidate the material foundation that underlies our allied relations, relations of strategic partnership.

Thanks to our efforts in this area, we have recorded record trade turnover, which achieved impressive results in 2024. Its volume amounted to $11.6 billion. This is more than a third of Armenia's total foreign trade turnover. Russia remains the republic's first trade and investment partner.

We emphasized that 96% of bilateral trade is carried out in national currencies - rubles and drams. Russian economic operators traditionally act as key taxpayers and employers in Armenia, and implement socially significant projects.

We welcomed the efforts of the Armenian authorities to ensure the legitimate interests of Russian business circles investing in the republic. We are confident that this will contribute to the further inflow of domestic investment in such important areas for the Armenian economy as agriculture, energy, mining, transport and logistics.

We highly appreciate the activities of the Russian-Armenian Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation. It works rhythmically. Its 23rd meeting was held in Moscow on December 20, 2024. We noted the demand for the practice of regular visits of business missions of Russian regions to the Republic of Armenia.

Relations between the legislators are progressing. As our colleague Ararat Mirzoyan has informed, the visit of the Speaker of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to the Republic of Armenia is being prepared. The bilateral Inter-Parliamentary Commission on Cooperation is working quite actively.

We exchanged views on cooperation between our common integration associations, primarily within the EAEU. Our assessments coincide. Participation in the Union is the key to sustainable economic growth and the well-being of our citizens.

We discussed cooperation in the field of security. We are allies. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Russian military base in Armenia, which is an important component of ensuring the country's security interests. We are in favour of close contacts on a regular basis between our military, law enforcement agencies and security services. All this should be based on the rich experience gained in previous years. We are interested in Armenia's active participation in the CSTO.

We also talked about promoting objective media coverage of what is happening in Russia and Armenia, the positions of our countries on international and regional issues.

The plan of consultations that we signed today provides for a special conversation between the Foreign Ministry agencies responsible for information work.

When discussing international and regional problems, we paid special attention to the situation in our common region, the South Caucasus region. We are convinced that the issues that arise here should be resolved primarily by the states located here and our closest neighbours.

We have nothing against extra-regional countries, as provided for in the current international practice, developing their relations with the countries located here with the understanding that such interaction will not be aimed at creating tension in the region or ignoring the interests of the countries located here for the sake of geopolitical games, which has never led to anything good. Our position is openness to cooperation with all those who are ready to do this honestly, without hidden agendas.

In line with our approach, we reaffirmed Russia's readiness to continue to assist Yerevan and Baku in moving towards achieving full-fledged peace and harmony through the conclusion of a peace treaty, the widespread unblocking of economic and transport communications, the delimitation and demarcation of the state border. A solid basis for these processes is the set of trilateral Russian-Armenian-Azerbaijani agreements at the highest level of 2020-2022 (1,2,3,4).

In addition, we see considerable potential in the development of the format of the 3+3 Platform for Regional Cooperation. The three countries of the South Caucasus and their closest immediate neighbours—Russia, Iran and Turkey. Two ministerial meetings have already been held in Tehran and Istanbul. We are now discussing holding a third ministerial forum. Following the contacts in Tehran and Istanbul, we have the opportunity to be somewhat optimistic about the future of this platform. It has all the prerequisites to become an important component and pillar for strengthening long-term peace and security in the region, in promoting mutually beneficial trade, economic and transport cooperation and a platform for the development of the rich cultural traditions of the South Caucasus countries and their closest neighbours.

We talked about where the third meeting in the 3+3 format can be convened. I believe that those who want to host this event–-the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan–-can come to an agreement among themselves. We are ready to facilitate the consistency of the meeting. We are in favour of holding the next two events in the capitals of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

We are satisfied with the results of the talks. We spoke frankly, without hiding the specifics of our national positions. It exists in relations between any two states. I hope that the results of our conversation, the agreements and the plans that we have outlined today will be supported by President Viktor Khachaturyan and Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, who kindly agreed to receive our delegation in the afternoon.

Question: At the regional seminar of EU ambassadors to Eastern Europe, you said that the existing security architecture is ineffective. Against the backdrop of this statement, should we expect Yerevan to completely abandon cooperation with Russia and the CIS countries in this matter and search for new strategic partners – for example, in Europe?

Sergey Lavrov: European security concerns everyone. We share the principled assessment that the European security system that has existed until now has proven to be ineffective and has done so for a long time and repeatedly.

The main backbone of the existing security structures was the Euro-Atlantic structures. If we take an inclusive structure, then it is the OSCE, and if we take a structure that decided, despite the creation of the Organization, to do everything to maintain its dominant positions, not transferring the functions of defining and implementing the relevant principles to the OSCE, but "keeping them at home," then this is the North Atlantic Alliance.

Recently, the European Union has also had to be considered part of the Euro-Atlantic structure. Because it, having signed an agreement with NATO and delegated a significant part of its powers in the field of security, is simultaneously engaged in its own militarization of the European Union. This "framework" of the security structures that are still in place has not been tested for strength.

Let me remind you that in 1999, the OSCE summit in Istanbul adopted a detailed document on the indivisibility of security. It said that no country or organisation in the OSCE region has the right to claim dominance on the territory of the organisation. This principle, word for word, was reaffirmed in 2010 at the OSCE summit in Astana. After that, we tried to get our Western partners to comply with this principle because they continued NATO's eastward expansion despite all the commitments signed at the highest level, despite our repeated warnings that this poses a direct threat to Russia's security and contradicts the principle of indivisible security. We were told that they are committed to not strengthening their security at the expense of the security of others. But these are political commitments. Then we proposed codifying this "political commitment" and making it legally binding. In 2008, we circulated a draft of such a treaty. NATO members replied that legal security guarantees can only be provided within the framework of the alliance. When we asked them that there were signatures of their presidents, we were again told that these were political commitments, that they did not matter much. This is the attitude towards documents adopted at the highest level.

Since then, our North Atlantic colleagues have repeatedly proved that they want to dominate and do not need any OSCE. This is just a "screen" to mask their true intentions under the guise of lofty slogans.

The next "test" that was "failed" by Euro-Atlantic organisations was the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo. At that time, we were told, but don't worry, because this is the implementation of the right enshrined in the UN Charter-–the right of nations to self-determination. Let me remind you that there were no military actions when this unilateral declaration took place. No arguments were voiced about the need to save people. They just "wanted"–-"the time has come." And when, six years later, in the face of the bloody putsch carried out by neo-Nazis in Ukraine and immediately proclaimed their policy of exterminating everything Russian: education, culture, etc., they sent armed detachments to Crimea to seize the Supreme Soviet, and the Crimeans said that they did not want to have anything to do with them and would not recognise their illegal troops, and when our sailors from the Russian base in Sevastopol came to their defence and helped hold a referendum, NATO members did not even mention any right of nations to self-determination. They said that this was a gross violation of the principle of territorial integrity. When we told them that after your Kosovo precedent, the International Court of Justice issued a ruling that stated that when a part of a territory declares independence, this decision does not have to be coordinated with the central authorities. We were not answered to this. They were simply ignored. Therefore, of course, such structures are failed security mechanisms. They are proving this every day. In particular, they reacted with complete silence to the coup d'état in 2014, which was followed by the excesses of those putschists who illegally seized power in Ukraine. Remember the bombing of the centre of Lugansk and other cities in eastern Ukraine by combat aircraft, how about 50 people were burned in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa. No one is going to conduct any investigation. The OSCE is shamefully silent.

Just as they, together with the UN, are silent in response to our demands to show the progress of the investigation into the tragedy that "took place" in Bucha. When BBC journalists, who happened to be there at the right time, showed the neatly arranged bodies of people on the main street of this settlement. We still cannot get a list of the names of those whose bodies were shown to the whole world with such pathos and anguish. This episode was used for another wave of sanctions against Russia. What kind of security system is this? What kind of justice is this?

Euro-Atlantic structures have discredited themselves. Now, apparently, the United States is also disappointed in them. At least, the statements of the Trump administration indicate that there is a need for Europe to be more responsible for its own affairs. The United States has priorities in other regions of the world.

In this regard, the question arises: which security system will be fairer? We believe that a more equitable security system will be one that is not imposed from above by any one structure, but comes from life. For example, there are a number of integration associations on the Eurasian continent: the EAEU (already mentioned today), the CIS, the CSTO, ASEAN, and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. There are also sub-regional associations in South Asia. Many of these organisations have already signed memorandums of cooperation. And thus, naturally, a kind of Greater Eurasian Partnership is being formed from below, as described by President of Russia Vladimir Putin. I would add here the Chinese Belt and Road project, which is being implemented together with the EAEU and ASEAN. All this forms the material foundation for the future security architecture. When the economy connects nations, it always helps to agree on how to neutralize challenges and threats.

Therefore, the Eurasian security architecture is very promising. And the doors to participation in discussions on how to create it are open. For a couple of years now, Minsk has been holding conferences with the participation of foreign ministers, their deputies and the political science community to draft a Charter on Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century. Everyone is invited to the dialogue, including EU members and European NATO members. This is an honest approach that involves universal coordination of possible future structures. But when journalists asked our colleagues from the alliance about their interest in the eastern part of the Eurasian continent, in particular, former Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, about plans to move NATO infrastructure to the Far East, to Southeast Asia, despite positioning itself as a "territorial defence union" to protect the territories of member states. He said without blinking, yes, yes, it is. But in the current conditions, threats to the territories of NATO countries come from the South China Sea, from the Taiwan Strait, from Southeast Asia, etc. But the alliance wants to do this exclusively under its control, transferring military infrastructure there, creating "mini-blocs", "threes", "fours", etc.

Our approach is different. Let's all get together and come to an agreement without imposing anything on anyone. The European Union does not yet have such military capabilities. Although it is actively building them, militarizing them. Suffice it to mention Germany's statement about the need to become the main militaristic power in Europe again. But the European Union is also active and is trying to spread its mechanisms in the South Caucasus and the Central Asian region. No one can forbid anyone to develop relations with any country in the world. But this should not be a "zero-sum game." You cannot come and say, let us offer you a project that interests you, but stop communicating with someone else in return. This is not our principle. This is a principle that has been described as "divide and rule" since ancient times. And it is clear that there is nothing democratic or free in this principle.

Question: In 2022, Azerbaijan attacked the sovereign territory of Armenia, in particular the city of Jermukh. Why was there no appropriate reaction from the Russian Federation to this?

Sergey Lavrov: I don't know what you call an "appropriate reaction." In particular, there was a reaction that met our obligations to Armenia within the CSTO. Immediately, an advance group/mission to familiarize themselves with the CSTO situation, headed by the Secretary General, went to the site and promptly submitted a report with specific, practical proposals to send a CSTO observer mission to stabilise the situation. The number of observers and the weapons they should have were scheduled.

This report was considered in October 2022 in Yerevan as part of the CSTO summit. On the eve of the meeting of the heads of state and government, the foreign and defence ministers worked for a long time, editing the proposals that were made by the CSTO Secretariat under the chairmanship of Ararat Mirzoyan. As a result, we reached a consensus on the entire text. In the morning, it was submitted to the heads of state and government for consideration. But in that situation, the Armenian side proposed postponing the agreed text for various reasons-–"there is no consensus." We agreed, and after some time, in November 2022, the EU mission was announced. In Prague, it was stated that the position regarding the affiliation of Nagorno-Karabakh will now be resolved on a reciprocal basis–-it was confirmed by both Baku and Yerevan-–on the basis of the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration, according to which the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region is part of Azerbaijan.

This was quite unexpected. Because in November 2020, at the height of hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia, President of Russia Vladimir Putin, together with Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, drafted the ceasefire agreement themselves at night. In that document, the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh's ownership was deliberately left out of the equation. It was a gentleman's agreement that the status of Karabakh should be further agreed upon between the parties.

But what happened happened. Therefore, I do not dispute the ability of our Armenian friends to criticize the position that someone took at that time. I replied that we did.

For a deeper understanding of the situation, I will recall more than one decade of negotiations that were held with the participation of previous administrations in Yerevan. Several times it seemed that an agreement had already been reached, but then they "fell apart". So you can criticize. They do not criticize someone who does nothing. We were just trying.

Question (retranslated from Armenian): You have arrived in a country against which, as well as against Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan has used Russian weapons in large quantities. As a result, Nagorno-Karabakh was seized, as well as part of the territory of the Republic of Armenia. In addition, Russia did not fulfill its obligations under the 1997 agreement, it did not provide weapons to Armenia, despite the fact that payment was made. Do you think that in these conditions, Armenia should start cooperation in the military sphere with other countries, for example, with France? Although you, for your part, said at a news conference on January 14 of this year that EU membership is the decision of the country itself, there are warnings about the "Ukrainisation of Armenia". What does it mean? That Russia is going to put pressure on Armenia by economic means or military forces, as happened with Kiev, or do you really respect the decision of sovereign Armenia?

Sergey Lavrov: It is even embarrassing to answer your question, because you do not need my answer.

First of all, I don't remember everything you said here. Your position is clear. I will try to respond.

As for the fact that Azerbaijan used Russian weapons. Let me remind you that Armenia has also used Russian weapons almost all the years after gaining independence, including to seize seven regions that it never officially claimed.

None of the first leaders of Armenia ever proposed recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent entity. But Russian weapons were used to seize seven uncontested Azerbaijani regions and to build fortifications and battle lines there, which showed that the calculation was to hold these territories for a very long time. Some analysts said the nature of these fortifications suggests that there were no plans to transfer them back to Azerbaijan at all.

Russian weapons are also in Africa. The flag of Mozambique depicts a Kalashnikov assault rifle. Many countries have our weapons. This does not mean that everywhere it is used for the purposes that would meet the principles that would suit everyone.

We discussed the episodes you mentioned, with payment for supplies and with failed deliveries, today. We have settled them. These payments are offset for other purposes. There are no contradictions regarding new supplies.

We are now in a situation where we are forced, as many times in history, to fight against the whole of Europe, which is once again fighting against Russia under Nazi slogans, putting the regime of Vladimir Zelensky in the lead. Almost all European countries. As you understand, in this situation, there are a lot of weapons coming to Ukraine. It is modern, it requires our response.

I am convinced that our Armenian friends understand that in these situations we cannot fulfill all our obligations on time. But even in this situation, a number of systems contracted by Armenian friends are being transferred. We will continue this practice.

As for the purchase of weapons from other countries. There is no problem. This is the choice of our Armenian friends. If they want to have a French "base" for additional supplies, they are welcome. If they want to have them in some other country, they are welcome. We will not impose anything. Of course, it is strange when an ally relies on weapons from a country like France, which leads the enemy camp. Personally, President Emmanuel Macron and all his ministers are simply hating Russia, calling it "the only problem that makes a Ukrainian settlement impossible." And by "settlement" they mean only a ceasefire without any conditions for at least a month, or even longer, so that they can re-arm Ukraine in a calm atmosphere so that it can strengthen its defensive positions. Moreover, these calls for an unconditional ceasefire are heard after several years of a completely different position, which was stated by the European Union and NATO members, namely: no negotiations until Ukraine gets stronger positions than Russia, and no negotiations at all until Russia is inflicted a "strategic defeat". Then they turned 180 degrees, and now there is a "truce". No longer about a "strategic defeat", but about a truce so that Ukraine gets a "respite".

In a political sense, France acts as a hostile country. Therefore, it is up to our allies to decide where it is better to buy weapons. Even with all that I have said.

You said something about January 14 and the right to choose. We recognise the right to choose. We still have very good relations with our Armenian friends, despite a number of problems that have arisen in our relations due to a misunderstanding of each other's positions.

As for Nagorno-Karabakh, I will say it again. No one can reproach us. Over the past 20 years, President Vladimir Putin, President Dmitry Medvedev and President Vladimir Putin have been promoting solutions that ensured a fair approach through peace talks.

Let me remind you what was discussed. Of the seven Azerbaijani districts, five districts should be returned, as a first step. As an intermediate stage, to preserve the Kelbajar and Lachin regions (this is a huge territory connecting Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh) in the status in which they are now, postponing the decision on the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh for many years. In fact, there was talk of postponing it to future generations. Perhaps this is better than what has happened now, due to the fact that the compromise proposals that have been promoted by the Russian leadership for many years have been rejected. The right to choose was exercised. In this case, the rejection of the formula that I have just recalled.

Your phrase about our policy of allegedly "Ukrainising Armenia" in order to then, as you put it, "do to Armenia what we did to Ukraine." There is even nothing to comment on. This means that you support the Nazi regime, those who burned people in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa, who sent combat detachments to storm the Supreme Soviet of Crimea only because it and the people refused to support the unconstitutional state parliament.

I do not remember the Armenian leadership commenting on the coup d'état in Ukraine in February 2014. I do not remember any Western countries commenting negatively on this event. This means that even then (in 2014) Armenia exercised its right to choose a position. And our European colleagues, who on the eve of the coup d'état acted as guarantors of the agreement between the then president and the opposition, when asked why they did not call these putschists to order, because it was guaranteed that a settlement had been reached, shamefully let go of their eyes, told us that sometimes democracy acquires unexpected "twists". The same is true of the United States. They went somewhere "aside," although the day before, then-US President Barack Obama called President Vladimir Putin and asked him not to object to the signing of a settlement agreement under EU guarantees.

Speaking of the United States, in 2014 (a little later than February) there was an attempted coup d'état in the Gambia. You are an interested person. Look on the Internet. There is a statement from the US State Department regarding the attempted coup in the Gambia. It says that the United States will never support the transfer of power by unconstitutional means. You have American colleagues at a news conference. Ask them why it is "impossible" in the Gambia, and "it is allowed" in Ukraine. They will probably tell you something about "subjective circumstances". In fact, the Gambia had a government that the Americans supported, and Ukraine had a president that they wanted to overthrow and install their people. That's all.

I do not see any reason for the "Ukrainization of Armenia". Armenia is our ally, our friend. Armenia does not outlaw the Russian language, Russian culture, does not deprive ethnic Russians and those who simply want to speak Russian of their legal rights. Armenia has not adopted laws prohibiting all this, as happened in Ukraine. We have passed on the list of these laws to our friends today. Nowhere, in any country, there is no ban on any non-state language (or any other) if this language is spoken by the inhabitants of this country.

We found out that the Azerbaijani language is not banned in Armenia. In Azerbaijan, including Nagorno-Karabakh, the Armenian language is not banned by the country's Constitution, but in Ukraine Russian is prohibited. In Israel, the Arabic language is not prohibited, and Hebrew is not prohibited in Arab countries.

Ukraine is a unique country. We heard the statement of the European Commissioner for Enlargement M. Kos that Ukraine has fulfilled all the preconditions, and it is possible to start negotiations on joining the EU. Against the backdrop of the fact that President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas and others say that Ukraine must be helped until it wins, because this country defends "European values." This means that Europe considers Nazism to be its values, the extermination of the language spoken by the majority of citizens of the corresponding state, in this case Ukraine. What kind of "Ukrainization of Armenia" are we talking about? Armenia is a civilized country. [My Emphasis]

After upbraiding that media person, Lavrov was applauded by the audience. If you’re going to be confrontational with Lavrov, you better have all your facts polished and readily available. It’s unfortunate the cameras only portray the two ministers and there’s no image of the woman who asked that series of questions.

Since the Soviet Era, Russia has been Armenia’s steadfast friend and helped it many times. Armenia’s own tragic history IMO is behind the entire Nagorno-Karabakh affair, which is very complex and reported in books not short comments. My analysis says Armenia will become far worse if it joins EU/NATO and thus becomes a colony of the Outlaw US Empire. Its nations currency would self-destruct as would its very dynamic trade with Russia and the EAEU. I had my doubts that Pashinyan would attend the 9 May celebrations, but he did and from what I saw he was pleased to be there. Armenia isn’t a resource rich nation; what it is rich in is its people and their heritage. Armenia can become what I call a High-Minded nation by employing its human capital in intellectual/high-science pursuits and related technology areas.

Pashinyan has a very “colorful” political history and has survived seven stormy years as Armenian PM where he’s clearly learned on the job. As the next report will show, Russia is popular within Armenia. Lavrov’s report provides grounds for confidence moving forward. Putin chats with Pashinyan at least once monthly. We still await the formal signing of the Peace Treaty that will mark the formal end to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!