Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan answered several questions posed by reporters from The Telegraph (Great Britain), European Post (Brussels), Foreign Policy (USA), Tageblatt (Austria) and Il Giornale (Italy).

Below is the unedited transcript of the questions and answers as provided by Pashinyan’s office.

Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for the interview. The war in Nagorno Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan started one month ago. At what point are we now with this war?

First, let us record what is going on and who is fighting against Nagorno-Karabakh. And let us state that Turkey was the main instigator of this war. Turkey transported mercenaries, terrorists from Syria, and transferred part of its armed forces to Azerbaijan, including military equipment, armed groups from Pakistan, which have set a goal to take control of Nagorno-Karabakh by means of a blitzkrieg. According to their estimates, the war should have lasted a maximum of one week, or 10 days.

But Nagorno-Karabakh is holding; they continue to fight and will continue to fight for their legitimate rights, because this is not actually a territorial dispute; it is a legal dispute, because the Armenians have lived in Nagorno-Karabakh for several millennia; they have been a majority all that time. There is a huge Armenian cultural heritage in Nagorno-Karabakh: a 5th-century church, 8th, 10th, 13th-century Armenian churches.

The first Armenian school was founded in Nagorno-Karabakh. And the war, in fact, recorded the resistance of Nagorno-Karabakh at this stage, recorded Turkey’s imperial policy, since I consider it important to state that the issue has now gone beyond the logic and framework of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Turkey came here not so much to support Azerbaijan in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but to continue its imperial policy.

And what is happening here is a continuation of the policy that Turkey has been pursuing in the Mediterranean, with regard to Greece, Cyprus, Libya, Syria and Iraq. And again my record is that it is an imperial policy, because in fact the Armenians in the South Caucasus are the last obstacle for Turkey on the way to expanding its imperial policy to the north, east and south-east. My view remains the same. If Western societies fail to adequately assess Turkey’s actions, they will have to meet them in Vienna in the near future.

What can you realistically expect from the European Union, knowing that some EU countries are blocking sanctions against Turkey on other subjects?

We are trying to pin our hopes on our own resources and those countries that are bound by reciprocated commitments with Armenia. You asked me what is happening. What I mean is that the European Union should take action for itself. It is up to you to make a relevant decision. I am supposed to care about the security of Yerevan, Armenia and the Armenian people; Vienna’s security is not in my working logic. I can only warn you against the imminent threat.

This war started earlier in Europe, and it is going on every day. The fact that long-range artillery is not working over there does not mean that the war has not started yet. That war is going on.

There are forces that know the following: Europe has been living in prosperity for about 60 years, and prosperity prevents us from noticing the war that is taking place in Europe today, because a prosperous person tends to be guided by a “wishful thinking logic” until bombs explode in the courtyards, houses. This opens up a vast field for many forces.

What war do you mean that is happening now in Europe?

Look at what happened in France, look at the tone in which the Turkish President speaks about the President of France. Have you ever wondered which president or official of any country can, for example, speak to the President of France with that logic? Who could have imagined that 15 years ago?

Even during the Cold War, I do not know of any case where a Soviet or any European leader said things like that about his French counterpart. What is it if not war? The point is whether you wish to ignore the war, or not.

Yes, people are being beheaded on the streets of Europe; people are happy that they have not yet been decapitated. I call it the mechanics of genocide. If this time someone’s head is not cut off, it does not mean that the same thing will not happen next time.

You recently said there is no diplomatic solution at this moment. Where are we now?

I said at this stage when the leaders of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairing nations - the presidents of Russia, France and the United States - took turns to broker a ceasefire, but the ceasefire failed to come into effect.

Is it possible to talk about a diplomatic solution when the two countries’ top diplomats through the mediation of the global powers reach a ceasefire agreement which is not being enforced? In this case no diplomatic agreement will be implemented. How serious is it to hope that bigger diplomatic agreements can be implemented in those conditions?

This war has reached a new level of aggression since you got into power – is there anything you could have done to prevent that?

The situation has not really changed since 2011, because the problem is that the issue can only be resolved through compromise. What is the situation we have since 2011? Naturally, compromise means agreeing to something that is not at first acceptable to you, and we have had such dynamics since 2011.

What becomes acceptable to Armenia, as a result of a specific concession, becomes unacceptable for Azerbaijan from that moment on. And Azerbaijan expects the Armenian side, Karabakh, to make more concessions. This is the reason for the outbreak of aggression you say. Because, of course, there is a compromise, but on the one hand, we cannot afford unlimited concessions, when the other side is not prepared for a compromise just because it has more money to buy more weapons.

And I can answer your question: what else could I have done to prevent this war? I could give up defending the interests of Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia at all. But would that have prevented the war? No, because at the lowest point of our concession Azerbaijan should have demanded more.

I recently made a parallel between the Munich Agreement and our situation. Before the outbreak of World War II, the European powers thought that by ceding Czechoslovakia to Hitler they could whet his appetite and there would be no war in Europe. And what happened as a result: Hitler swallowed Czechoslovakia and as the other saying goes, appetite is aroused when eating. If the European leaders had not surrendered the Czechoslovakia, and a war started, journalists like you would say, “Is there anything you could do better? For instance, why did you not surrender the Czechoslovakia? While the questioned leaders would say, yes, we should have been a little more flexible in the case of the Czechoslovakia. They turned out to be more flexible, and what is the outcome?

Read full interview HERE