The chairman of the "For the Republic" party, Arman Babajanyan, wrote on his Facebook page:
"The latest statement by Vladimir Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation in the negotiations with Kyiv, is an unprecedented revelation of Russian policy. His words are a clear and straightforward confession. In the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, Russia was guided not by the logic of law or allied obligations but by its imperial interests and geopolitical calculations.
"We do not want a new Karabakh to emerge, which is not recognized by anyone."
Medinsky's words fully reveal the Kremlin's attitude towards Artsakh and any territory striving for autonomy in general. Medinsky argues that the existence of Artsakh, as an unrecognized but self-governing Armenian entity, is fundamentally unacceptable for Russia. The existence of Artsakh itself was perceived as a danger, a precedent that could be repeated in other places, including Ukraine. Therefore, it should not have been protected but eliminated.
Medinsky's words indicate that Artsakh did not simply fall victim to Azerbaijani-Turkish aggression or international indifference but was deliberately erased from history by Russia's decision. Even before the 2020 war, Moscow viewed Artsakh as a disruptive factor in the Kremlin's new strategic alignment, centered on the Ukrainian campaign and its possible geopolitical consequences.
By presenting the Nagorno-Karabakh precedent as a possible cause of a "nuclear war," Medinsky is trying to alienate Artsakh from the historical memory and dignity of the entire Armenian people. But in reality, his words are not a warning but a verdict. The destruction of Artsakh, with Moscow's consent and apparent neutrality, was a conscious price that Russia paid to gain the trust of its Turkish and Azerbaijani partners.
Moreover, Medinsky's formulations of "peace" and "recognition of new territories" clearly indicate that in the Kremlin's understanding, peace is not the restoration of justice or the recognition of the people's will but the legalization of territories occupied by force. When Russia speaks of peace, it means the establishment of control, the preservation of what has been conquered, and the continuation of oppression. In the case of Artsakh, the only way to bring peace to them was through its elimination. In the Kremlin's mind, this is formulated as follows: "If there is no Karabakh, there is no war."
Medinsky's words prove three key realities. First, Russia has never perceived Artsakh as a value that must be protected but has viewed it exclusively as a strategic obstacle hindering its interests. Second, the destruction of Artsakh was a pre-planned, coldly calculated decision, not an inevitable or forced concession. Third, Russia does not tolerate such precedents when people strive to build their own lives without its dictates. In the case of Artsakh, that precedent was simply eliminated.
This answers the question deliberately circulating in the public sphere for years to confuse, mislead, and evade historical responsibility: "Who surrendered Artsakh?" Medinsky has put his seal on it today. Artsakh was surrendered not as a result of the war or Armenia's defeat but as a result of the Kremlin's calculations. The decision was made in Moscow not to leave Karabakh but to transfer it to Turkey.
And if anyone still has such an ally in their hands, let them read these words until they understand that an ally shares your danger, not someone who uses you to digest their danger.
Medinsky's confession is a historical document, not just a revelation of the truth, but a political verdict. "Artsakh was not defeated, but destroyed by Russia so that a new Karabakh would never be born anywhere in the world - a new people who would dare to live freely, independently, without the tutelage of the Kremlin."
