According to any objective criterion, Nikol Pashinyan proved that it is the most popular negotiator to Armenia. Former Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian wrote about this.
"For six years, whatever he came to power, every diplomatic or strategic issue he touches turned into ash. At one time, the vibrant and resistant state, Armenia now, is now faced with the lost Nagorno-Karabakh, occupied territories, weakened defense, degraded allied connections and frustrated people.
However, this is not just a consequence of Azerbaijan's aggression. This situation is directly the result of unprecedented bad leadership and the basic violation of the basic principles.
Pashinyan's negotiation failures are not abstract. They are deeply tangible and bring about catastrophic real results. During his reign, Armenia brought war on him, could not prevent or end it, and disgraceful to thousands of victims. The ceasefire was signed under pressure, but even after that he could not ensure the implementation of any provision that contributed to Armenia's interests in that shortage.
Moreover, he later actually handed over Nagorno Karabakh in Prague, and later "touching" and paving the way to complete ethnic cleansing. Since then, Azerbaijan has increased its demands by step, expanding territorial ambitions, abducted the Artsakh leadership and occupied some parts of Armenia's sovereign territory. And Pashinyan continued his way of concessions.
Pashinyan's negotiation "approach" if it can be called this way, it is characterized by fatal disability. He has repeatedly acknowledged the terms of the opposite side before the talks, depriving Armenia of any leverage. Moreover, he often did not raise Armenian priorities at all. His behavior reminds not of the leader of the result, but at any cost of completing a person who seeks a person without spinal and strategic thinking.
The last example was to agree to the last points of the so-called "peace agreement", knowing that Azerbaijan's demands are still going on. Baku still demands an exterior corridor in the south of Armenia, constitutional changes, and the full cancellation of the Minsk Group. Pashinyan agreed to that framework without any visible compensation or guarantee.
This pattern is inferior without reciprocity, agreement without insurance, and dialogue without determination, Armenia has left strategically dangerous. Today's Armenia has lost not only territories and lives, but also the moral reputation and diplomatic capital needed to resist Azerbaijan's ambitions. Pashinyan's failures have turned the conflict into a crisis.
Each negotiator operates in certain restrictions, but good leaders are able to create results in these conditions. Pashinyan went differently, making bad decisions, rejecting the expert advice, and choosing unilateral vulnerability instead of complex and courageous diplomacy.
He alienated the allies, it was wrong to assessed the opponents and missed the most important moments of modern Armenian history.
One of the main principles of negotiations is to focus on interests instead of attitudes, making mutually beneficial options before making a final decision, and the definition of objective criteria to manage the results. Pashinyan does not use any of these principles.
His tenure should be a subject of study in international relations and negotiation courses, as a classic example of how to negotiate, and how weak and unprincipled diplomacy can lead to national destruction.
Armenia is currently facing a security nightmare. Pashinyan not only failed to defend Armenia's interests, but in fact contributed to their degradation, "he wrote.
