Sarkisian Discusses Possible Concessions During Artsakh Visit, Say Karabakh Activists

Artsakh President Bako Sahakian greets President Serzh Sarkiasian when he arrived in Stepanakert in June

Artsakh President Bako Sahakian greets President Serzh Sarkiasian when he arrived in Stepanakert in June

Artsakh President Bako Sahakian greets President Serzh Sarkiasian when he arrived in Stepanakert in June

YEREVAN—Details of Presidents Serzh Sarkisian’s weekend trip to Stepanakert were overshadowed by the seizure of a police station in Yerevan on Sunday by a group loyal to the “Founding Parliament” calling itself the “Daredevils of Sassoun.” reported Tuesday that while in Stepanakert on Saturday, Sarkisian met with a group of Artsakh activists who played a major role in the Karabakh Liberation Movement in the late 1980s and early 1990s and discussed possible territorial concessions.

Two of them told’s Armenian Service that Sarkisian solicited their views on the idea of returning to Azerbaijan districts around Karabakh that were liberated during the Artsakh war and are part of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

“He asked each of us what we think,” one of the participants, Razmik Petrosian, told

“Ninety percent of us spoke out against such concessions. Why should we make them?” said Petrosian who added that Sarkisian insisted that neither Armenia nor Karabakh are being pressured by the Russian, U.S. and French mediators to make such concessions.

Petrosian, however, surmised that Russian sale of weapons to Azerbaijan amounts to pressure and said that Armenia was being pressured by external forces to make unilateral concessions despite Sarkisian’s assertions to the contrary.

Listen to the Armenian Service report.

“We have no intention to give up lands,” another Karabakh activist, Hamlet Grigorian, told

“Neither the Armenian president nor the Karabakh president claimed the opposite,” Grigorian added saying that the topic of territorial concessions is being imposed by external forces.

According to Grigorian, concession of any Karabakh territory signifies depleting the region of Armenians, which he called unacceptable. During the same discussion, the small swath of territory that was lost during the four-day war in April was also discussed with all agreeing that it must be reclaimed.

Sarkisian’s weekend trip to Artsakh, which he cut short due to the tense situation in Armenia, is the second such excursion after one-on-one talks with his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev in St. Petersburg, Russia last month.

Since then, interest by highest levels of the governments representing the Minsk Group co-chairing countries has placed a greater emphasis on the conflict resolution, with, Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussing a Karabakh conflict resolution as recently as last Thursday.

Last week, after meeting with the leadership of Azerbaijan in Baku, Lavrov claimed that a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was “closer than ever.” Of course, the top Russian diplomat did not qualify this statement nor did he explain what his declaration would mean for the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and its citizens.


Discussion Policy

Comments are welcomed and encouraged. Though you are fully responsible for the content you post, comments that include profanity, personal attacks or other inappropriate material will not be permitted. Asbarez reserves the right to block users who violate any of our posting standards and policies.


  1. David Karamian said:

    I think Sarkisian is headed in the right direction despite all factors and sentiments against it. NK conflict is impacting the well being of the overall republic and some sort of concession is a must before the country can start devoting its resources towards infrastructure and improving people’s life.

    • Iren said:

      This would be ni ot only the moist stupid thing to do but plain treason and and loss of entire Armenia.

    • joe said:

      Nonsense. Armenians already sacrificed immensely. AND WON. Yet it seems some Armenians are scared and willing to capitulate because Turks and necons and fare weather mother Russia cant be trusted or the future is too much for us? One sided capitulation is a sign of weakness. The TOTAL Armenian destruction is their true intention. There is no reasoning with these animals. Just 100 years ago they decided on race liquidation. Giving up land doesn’t end that goal for them or change their characteristics. I trust them zero.UNDERSTAND? trust in ourselves. Trust in the Armenian military. Unite as one. I’m ready to go there and fight if I have too. We all should be.

  2. edward demian said:

    When discussing land, the Azery occupied NK lands and the ethnic cleansing of Nachitchevan has to be included on the agenda. Beside, NK lands are not the borders of today or even 100 years ago. NK borders are delineated in the treaties between Russia and Persia. Turmanchai, etc. The Karabagh of today, is a much gerrymandered, reduced land. All those so called seven regions are part of Nagorno Karabagh.

  3. Tavit said:

    It was clear that Armenia was being pressured for a long time by external forces, especially by Russians, to make unilateral concessions. Once Armenians start consenting to give land unilaterally, Azerbaijan will put more pressure on Armenia for more concessions. It will never end and soon Azerbaijan will ask corridor between Turkey and Azerbaijan.

    • joe said:

      Agreed. that’s because Russia, who is screw light for Armenia, already controls most parts of her infrastructure. And really always wanted more influence over Azerbaijan. That’s why it sells it arms without any concern for its possible war with its “ally”. That’s why it pushes for ridiculous Armenian concessions. Russia is no true Armenian ally. NEVER WILL BE..