Armenia May Demand 2 Billion Drams in Rent from South Caucasus Railway: Pashinyan

There have been no discussions regarding the railway, but our position on the railway remains unchanged. It is our property, and the Republic of Armenia must have the opportunity to use that railway as it sees fit. I want to be very clear on this issue—there is no alternative to this.

This was stated by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan during a press briefing. When asked how long they should wait, Pashinyan responded, "Sufficiently long, but not endlessly. This issue needs to be resolved. I want it to be very clear. Again, I say now there is much discussion, trying to push certain things, mainly by the opposition in Armenia through a colluding oligarch—that this will become more expensive, that will become more expensive. There are also things in Armenia that are free. It may turn out that something is becoming expensive, or there are things that have existed in Armenia for 30 years for free. It may turn out that Armenia will start to demand 2 billion drams annually for these and say: pay an annual rent of 2 billion drams.

There is no hint regarding the railway. I clearly say: this is the property of the Republic of Armenia, and there is no other option. We want to solve this problem amicably, but in any case, we need to solve this issue. A question may arise about whether we will make a de jure decision. If there is disagreement, we will go to arbitration and discuss it.

By the way, do you remember the talk about arbitration? That the former owners of HEC—the colluding oligarch—won in arbitration? When it became clear in the building that they had a person, and when we expelled that person from the building, in arbitration... And you say this is corruption, isn't it? Has anyone investigated this person's activities? There was a letter written, and based on that letter, there was an uproar. Has anyone investigated? I am turning to law enforcement agencies. A month later, they appeared on the tail of a three-headed party. Has anyone examined whether this is corruption or not, what ties were made?

Now I am publicly, taking this opportunity, reporting a crime. I do not want to violate anyone's presumption of innocence, but I believe the Anti-Corruption Committee and law enforcement agencies should discuss this. How could it turn out that there was a person serving the interests of a private company in this building, and then they left? Accounts and properties need to be checked. Let’s see what this person was doing, whether they were providing information to the political sphere from here and writing illogical letters.

"The government lost arbitration, it will continue to lose." Why are you not covering that they were defeated in arbitration because we got the Trojan horse out of the building? Now I am reporting to law enforcement to investigate the activities of the Trojan horse. Has the Anti-Corruption Committee examined this? I also demand answers from the institutes—did they investigate this case or not?

This person has written letters contradicting the government’s position, written letters contradicting the Prime Minister’s instructions. Later they left and ended up on the list of a three-headed party. Is this coincidental? Did it just happen by chance? Then it became clear that the tail of the three-headed party is receiving funding from somewhere. Is that a coincidence? No one is investigating this, not even state bodies.

I expect answers. Has the Anti-Corruption Committee dealt with this specific case? Do you want better corruption than this?"