YEREVAN — The debate over the return of forcibly displaced Artsakh Armenians has intensified following remarks by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who suggested that advancing the return agenda could create tension and provide “nothing” for the refugees.
During a media briefing in Hamburg, Pashinyan addressed Azerbaijan’s recent statements regarding language in the Armenia–EU strategic agenda, specifically the reference to “Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh who became refugees following Azerbaijan’s military operations.”
Pashinyan reiterated his longstanding warning that the topic of return is “extremely dangerous,” noting that he had raised the concern in an Aug. 18, 2025 message. He stressed that Azerbaijan, while promoting the concept of “Western Azerbaijan,” simultaneously acknowledges “Armenians of Karabakh,” creating what he described as a contradictory narrative.
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has repeatedly emphasized what he calls the “legitimate demand” of the Azerbaijani people for the restoration and protection of Azerbaijani cultural heritage in Armenia. Framing his remarks as part of a broader appeal for reconciliation and dialogue, Aliyev stated that such efforts are necessary “for respecting universal values, closing the chapter of hostility and promoting mutual understanding between peoples.”
Aliyev also reaffirmed the rights of the so-called “Western Azerbaijan” community — Azerbaijanis displaced from Soviet-era Armenia during interethnic tensions — and said that facilitating their return is a priority:
“Today, it is important to intensify efforts to secure the return of Azerbaijanis who were forcibly displaced from Armenia. Ultimately, the right of return is one of the fundamental principles of human rights. Ensuring this right means not only physical return to one’s homeland, but also the restoration of spiritual integrity, cultural heritage and the historical memory of society.”
Against this backdrop, Pashinyan proposed that Armenia and Azerbaijan adopt a joint roadmap to address both issues in parallel: “I want to make an open, public proposal to Azerbaijan. If they have concerns on these topics, so do we. I propose that we agree on a joint roadmap to close both issues simultaneously,” Pashinyan said.
He added that he had already informed the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh that their return is “not realistic” and argued that continuing to advance a return agenda would amount to reigniting the Karabakh movement — something he said “must not continue.” According to him, the movement has ended, and attempts to revive it are unproductive.
Referring to Azerbaijan’s frequent use of the term “Western Azerbaijan,” Pashinyan stated that the two sides must clarify “which issue is the cause and which is the effect.” He emphasized that Armenia has recognized Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and expects full reciprocity: “I have said that there cannot be any ‘Western Azerbaijan’ in the Republic of Armenia. If we have recognized each other’s territorial integrity, then that recognition must be fully implemented.”
Pashinyan expressed hope that his proposal would be translated and officially conveyed to Baku, stating that removing these issues from the agenda would help prevent future conflict and promote long-term strategic stability.
Former Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian sharply criticized the prime minister’s remarks, calling them “sensational” and potentially harmful to Armenia’s long-term national interests and security.
Oskanian said that the proposal could pave the way for future encroachments on Armenia’s sovereign territory, comparing it to Pashinyan’s 2019 statement, “Artsakh is Armenia, and that’s it,” which he argued contributed to the conditions leading to the 2020 war.
He condemned the proposal to Azerbaijan as fundamentally misguided: “It is simply unbelievable what Pashinyan is ‘offering’ Azerbaijanis. He asks them to renounce calling Armenia ‘Western Azerbaijan’ and abandon plans to resettle Azerbaijanis there, in exchange for Armenia dropping the issue of the return of Karabakh Armenians.”
Oskanian emphasized that the two issues cannot be equated under any diplomatic, legal or logical framework, citing international conventions and legal precedents affirming the right of peoples — especially those with autonomous status during Soviet times — to return to their homes after forced displacement, and potentially to negotiate autonomy or status arrangements.
He argued that by placing these concepts on the same level, Pashinyan has effectively opened the door for Azerbaijan to legitimize claims on Armenia:
“By drawing a false equivalence between the two topics, Pashinyan has achieved only one thing today: he has paved the way for Azerbaijan to bring an internationally baseless territorial claim against Armenia into formal agenda.”
Oskanian concluded that the prime minister’s position represents a dangerous departure from established diplomatic principles and undermines Armenia’s ability to defend its rights under international law.
Former Artsakh State Minister and Ombudsman Artak Beglaryan also criticized Pashinyan, calling his approach a serious miscalculation regarding the rights of displaced Artsakh Armenians and the so-called “resettlement” of Azerbaijanis in Armenia.
In a public statement, Beglaryan argued that Pashinyan’s apparent attempt to equate the return of Artsakh Armenians with the relocation of Azerbaijanis within Armenian territory is fundamentally flawed.
“If Pashinyan truly believes that the return of the people of Artsakh and the resettlement of Azerbaijanis in Armenia are comparable in terms of status, justification, legal basis and other essential criteria, or that he can concede or ‘trade’ the inalienable right of Artsakh’s people to return, he is gravely mistaken,” Beglaryan wrote.
He further warned that placing Azerbaijan’s unfounded claims on equal footing with the undisputed right of Artsakh Armenians undermines the significance of that right and sends misleading signals to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. Beglaryan described such moves as attempts to legitimize past acts of aggression and reduce the likelihood of future Azerbaijani claims — a rationale he called dangerously incorrect.
The Artsakh Union also condemned Pashinyan’s remarks as “unacceptable and unjust” toward the people of Artsakh and the Armenian nation as a whole. In a statement, the union emphasized that
the return of Artsakh’s displaced population is a fundamental right under international law, and any attempt to downplay it undermines democratic principles and violates the legal and natural rights of the affected population.
The statement criticized the prime minister’s suggestion that the return of Artsakh Armenians is comparable to Azerbaijani demands regarding displaced persons in Armenia, calling it legally and historically unfounded. It noted that Artsakh Armenians possess recognized status, compact settlement and a history of self-determination, in contrast to Azerbaijanis who lived in Armenia as a minority without autonomy.
The Artsakh Union further highlighted that the right of return is reinforced by international law, including the International Court of Justice’s November 2023 ruling and a joint October 2023 statement by 40 UN Human Rights Council member states. Prior rulings, such as the 2015 European Court of Human Rights decision in Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan, also established a precedent for safe, voluntary and dignified return.
The statement underscored the historical context, noting that Artsakh Armenians were forcibly displaced under conditions of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, whereas Azerbaijani departures from Armenia were largely voluntary and occurred under very different circumstances. The union stressed that the Republic of Armenia continues to bear legal, moral and international responsibility for protecting the rights and safety of Artsakh Armenians and ensuring the peaceful resolution of the conflict.
The statement concluded that Pashinyan’s remarks appear to abandon these responsibilities and risk legitimizing Azerbaijani actions, undermining prospects for a just and lasting peace. It emphasized that any durable solution to the conflict must prioritize the return of Artsakh Armenians while ensuring dignified living conditions within Armenia.
