Missing Maps in Border Delimitation: How Pashinyan Negotiates Without Showing the Armenians
They keep talking about maps. What maps are they using? Soviet maps favor Armenia. But Pashinyan doesn't explain. The 29,743 number-does it include the enclaves or not?
Throughout border delimitation talks with Azerbaijan, Armenian officials repeatedly reference maps without disclosing which maps they are using. Asbed raises a crucial question: Are they using the 1975 or 1989 Soviet maps? These maps, created during Soviet times when Armenia and Azerbaijan were both republics, clearly favor Armenia’s territorial claims. Yet Pashinyan’s government appears to be deliberately avoiding mention of these documents, instead invoking the vague Alma-Ata Declaration-which contains no maps at all.
Moreover, officials constantly cite the figure of 29,743 square kilometers as the amount Armenia claims, but refuse to clarify whether this number includes or excludes the disputed enclaves. As Asbed notes with evident frustration, this is absurd: if you know the exact figure, you must know whether enclaves are included. If you don’t know, the number is meaningless. Yet Pashinyan tells the Armenian people they will not concede a single millimeter of this 29,743, while remaining silent on what it encompasses.
Hovik mentions that over 180 Soviet-era protocols were signed between Armenian and Azerbaijani republics governing borders and territorial swaps. These protocols are far more detailed and favorable to Armenia than anything currently under negotiation. Yet Pashinyan’s government dismisses them as unratified and therefore invalid. This is a concerning legal argument: Soviet-era documents are ignored while the Alma-Ata Declaration-which has no maps-is treated as binding. The hosts suggest that Pashinyan may be deliberately obscuring negotiations from the Armenian public because the outcome would be unacceptable if transparently presented. Without maps, without clarity on what territories are included in the disputed figures, and without public debate, Armenians cannot assess whether their government is negotiating defensibly or surrendering territory. This is not merely poor communication; it appears to be deliberate opacity designed to prevent informed public resistance.
Transcript
Asbed: And second, Hovik, they keep talking about maps. Asbed: What maps are they using? Asbed: They're apparently not using the 1975 Soviet maps or the 1989 Soviet maps. Hovik: In fact, Hovik: in 1988, Hovik: there are various Armenian officials who were alive at the time and participated Hovik: in these efforts. Hovik: The 1988 and 1989 demarcations between Soviet Armenia Hovik: and Soviet Azerbaijan clearly have a very favorable outcome for Armenia. Hovik: But all of these are deliberately being ignored. Hovik: And I believe none of these are mentioned that there are enclaves in Armenia. Hovik: And there was some kind of a swap between Soviet Armenia and Soviet Azerbaijan so Hovik: that we don't have this enclave situation. Hovik: But of course, this is not in the interest of Azerbaijan, so it's not going to accept it. Hovik: And our Pashinyan government Is essentially claiming no knowledge about this. Hovik: But there are, I believe, more than 180 something protocols that were signed. Hovik: And Pashinyan or pro-Pashinyan pundits or cronies say that these are not ratified Hovik: and therefore not valid. Hovik: But for whatever reason, Hovik: the so-called Alma-Ata Declaration, Hovik: which has no maps, is being taken at face value and has an imaginary map. Asbed: It makes no sense. Asbed: If there's maps that they are using, then why aren't they telling us? Asbed: Why aren't they telling the Armenian people who need to know