HOVIK ABRAHAMYAN EITHER PRESENTED OR SOLD HIS HOUSE TO A POLICEMAN – ARMTIMES.COM REPORTS (VIDEO)
14:01 | February 18,2015 | Politics
The police in Yerevan are not allowing reporters to take photos of
Prime Minister’s house in Yerevan, armtimes.com reports.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
RUSSIA IS IMPLEMENTING FIRST STAGE OF DESTRUCTION OF ARMENIA
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments – 18 February 2015, 13:28
At different stages the Russian policy on the Karabakh issue has
been rather adaptive in style and content. For a long time Russia
preferred the status quo though it took the initiative from time to
time to balance the efforts of the United States to play a crucial
role in the decision making process.
Over many years, especially in 1995-2003 Russia needed the Karabakh
issue for pressure and influence on Azerbaijan, as well as on Armenia.
Russia often hinted to Azerbaijan that its position might change
unless Azerbaijan revises its.
These attempts have not resulted in essential changes in the
Russian-Armenian relations but it has caused lack of confidence in
the Russian policy among the Armenian public. Supply of weapons to
Azerbaijan and ignoring defense needs of Armenia are concerned.
Along with the development of the Russian-Armenian relations the
situation has changed, Armenia receives part of its required armament
from Russia. Russia has made considerable investments in Armenia,
primarily in the spheres of energy, transport and banking sector.
At the same time, in 2008 and in 2009 Russia’s attempts to
strengthen its foothold through activation of normalization of the
Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Azerbaijani relations caused lack of
confidence in the policy and intentions of Russia in Armenia.
Russia has practically thwarted the plans of construction of the
Iran-Armenia interregional gas pipeline, Iran-Armenia railway, a new
NPP, isolating Armenia and blocking the Iran-Europe strategy. Hence,
it became clear that Russia has adopted an overtly hostile policy
against Armenia.
However, Russia has started feeling inconvenient with the Karabakh
topic because it has stopped being an instrument of regional policy
and is increasingly becoming an instrument for the American policy.
Now Russia is faced with building “new”, reliable relations with
Azerbaijan, which would allow implementing the settlement of the
Karabakh issue outside the main process of settlement, i.e. the Minsk
Group process.
In autumn 2008 when the initiative of signing the treaties of Meindorf
was put forth, the United States made it clear that it will not accept
some “alternative” solutions for the Karabakh settlement which will not
be legitimate. It played a role in thwarting the Meindorf initiative
but Russia decided to return to this format in the early 2010.
Moscow understands very well that the process of settlement which is
based on the Principles of Madrid accepted by all the stakeholders
has failed. Therefore, the world centers of power will sooner or
later propose new format and new principles of settlement of the
Karabakh issue.
Russia does not intend to wait for new initiatives and is trying to
promote its own proposals, calculating that its relations with Armenia
and Azerbaijan are more important and meaningful than the relations
of these states with the United States and the Western community.
No doubt the Karabakh issue will generate more complications in the
Russian-Armenian relations if Russia proposes acceptable territorial
concessions. For the time being, building “new relations” with
Azerbaijan is concerned which are far from a clear understanding of
the prospect.
In 2010 Azerbaijan faced significant problems in its relations with
the United States and the EU, as well as Turkey, and Baku realized
that in 2008-2009 they missed the opportunity to gain advantage in
the process of the Karabakh settlement. Therefore, Baku will be more
attentive to Russia’s proposals which may become alternative options
of settlement of this problem.
There years ago Putin’s Alexander Dugin told me with unhidden
reluctance in the presence of an Armenian official that the Armenians
should not try to achieve the recognition of NKR by the United States.
He openly threatened Armenia with a disaster. In addition, it was
conveyed that Russia will never recognize NKR.
It should be noted that the current status of Karabakh fully fits
the interests of Russia.
Hence, Russia the ally is against the independence of NKR. The
existing lack of autonomy of NKR is part of Russia’s plans. Karabakh
does not have a political leadership, only some administration which
is devoid of any political rights. Of course, no state will recognize
the independence of a non-sovereign province.
The NKR administration understands its own situation very well and
leads a miserable existence, announcing that the purpose of NKR is
to achieve international recognition. It is not clear why this is
being done, and if anything is done at all to achieve recognition
of independence.
The statements that NKR must be a party in the talks are a showcase,
profanation. In reality, it has nothing to do with autonomy. It is
not even understood who is capable of negotiating on behalf of NKR.
If someone claims the right to negotiate on behalf of NKR, the purpose
will be ensuring the legitimacy of handing Karabakh to Azerbaijan.
Besides, it should be noted that neither Abkhazia, nor South Ossetia
had so many Russian agents. Who will recognize the independence of
such a province?
It is possible that the integration of Armenia with NATO would
lead to the “recognition of the rights of Karabakh”, afterwards the
recognition of its independence as a region which has a tendency for
independence. However, September 3 laid a gravestone on Karabakh,
and there is no doubt that this topic was absent in all the possible
discussions.
Armenia and Karabakh are mostly worried about proposals involving
peacekeepers in the conflict area. In addition, there is no doubt
that the peacekeepers will eventually play according to the rules of
the game that favors Azerbaijan, and it is impossible to overcome it
through any treaty.
Stationing Russian peacekeepers is but return of Karabakh under
Azerbaijan’s control which has become not only Russia’s real ally but
part of the “Russian world”. There is already such sad experience and
the Armenian leadership and public are pretending to have forgotten
the developments of the early 1990s.
The Russian troops have left a sad memory in Nagorno-Karabakh because
they were after infringement on the will and rights of the Armenian
population. The Russian troops clamped down on the Armenians twice,
in 1991 and 1992, organizing two punitive campaigns killing over 1000
Armenians, destroying over 40 Armenian settlements. They participated
in genocidal actions against the Armenians and displacing Armenians
from several regions of Karabakh.
No matter how the political and other conditions of the region change,
these developments cannot be ignored during the discussion of Russian
and other peacekeepers.
Supply of Russian weapons to Azerbaijan has made the latter think
that it has won the arms race and revenge is possible. This year was
a period of major military sabotages to which Russia did not react,
perceiving it as a condition of maintaining tension.
Putin has tried to appear as the one who curbs Azerbaijan’s aggression,
which ended up in escalation. If Russia wished, the border incidents
would stop over a night. Meanwhile, Russia needs escalation to have
an argument for stationing “peacekeepers”, i.e. occupation.
However, the Karabakh issue is the only temporary condition for Russia
to control the region. Russia is not interested in including Armenia
in the Eurasian project. All Russia is interested in is its isolation
which it has achieved.
Now Russia has appeared in international isolation and blockade,
which is a disaster for Armenia. Russia is getting close to Turkey and
Azerbaijan, and the loss of sovereignty and statehood of Armenia is
a premise. The Armenian society could not and did not want to react
to this, accepting capitulation. If the Western community failed
to withdraw Armenia from its state of vassal, the first stage of
destruction of the country will be ceding Karabakh to Azerbaijan.
This is the product of the Russian policy, which has become enemy
N 1 of the Armenian people. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh may feel
the end and repel this Russian policy.
The old legend of Karabakh is over, they have not invented the new
one. Who is the author of the new legend of Karabakh?
WHEN US PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN RECOGNIZED THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE
February 17, 2015
President Ronald Reagan: Like the genocide of the Armenians before it,
and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it — and like too
many other such persecutions of too many other peoples — the lessons
of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.
During the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack
Obama, recognizing the Armenian genocide as such–by referring to
it as a genocide–has been a problem even though each president,
while campaigning for the office, promised that he would endorse a
resolution recognizing the genocide.
Turkish lobbying pressures have proven effective to ward off just such
a recognition. Turkey to this day denies that a genocide took place,
claiming, against an overwhelming majority of evidence and historians,
that while a large number of Armenians died between 1915 and 1923,
it was as a result of war, not genocide.
President Reagan did not object to referring to the genocide by its
name, as he did in a 1981 proclamation recognizing the Holocaust. The
full text of that proclamation follows:
Proclamation 4838 — Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust
April 22, 1981 By the President of the United States of America
The Congress of the United States established the United States
Holocaust Memorial Council to create a living memorial to the victims
of the Nazi Holocaust. Its purpose: So mankind will never lose memory
of that terrible moment in time when the awful specter of death camps
stained the history of our world.
When America and its allies liberated those haunting places of
terror and sick destructiveness, the world came to a vivid and tragic
understanding of the evil it faced in those years of the Second World
War. Each of those names — Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Treblinka
and so many others — became synonymous with horror.
The millions of deaths, the gas chambers, the inhuman crematoria, and
the thousands of people who somehow survived with lifetime scars are
all now part of the conscience of history. Forever must we remember
just how precious is civilization, how important is liberty, and how
heroic is the human spirit.
Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of
the Cambodians which followed it — and like too many other such
persecutions of too many other peoples — the lessons of the Holocaust
must never be forgotten.
As part of its mandate, the Holocaust Memorial Council has been
directed to designate annual Days of Remembrance as a national,
civic commemoration of the Holocaust, and to encourage and sponsor
appropriate observances throughout the United States. This year,
the national Days of Remembrance will be observed on April 26 through
May 3.
Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of
America, do hereby ask the people of the United States to observe
this solemn anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps,
with appropriate study, prayers and commemoration, as a tribute to
the spirit of freedom and justice which Americans fought so hard and
well to preserve.
In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 22nd day of April,
in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-one, and of the
Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fifth.
Ronald Reagan
President of the United States of America
A DETAILED LOOK AT THE MIDDLE EAST THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN
February 17, 2015
By Nick Danforth
The Atlantic
In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson dispatched a theologian named Henry
King and a plumbing-parts magnate named Charles Crane to sort out
the Middle East.
Amid the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, the
region’s political future was uncertain, and the two men seemed to
provide the necessary combination of business acumen and biblical
knowledge.
King and Crane’s quest was to find out how the region’s residents
wanted to be governed. It would be a major test of Wilson’s belief
in national self-determination: the idea that every people should
get its own state with clearly defined borders.
After spending three weeks interviewing religious and community
leaders in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and southern Turkey, the two
men and their team proposed that the Ottoman lands be divided as
shown in the map above.
Needless to say, the proposals were disregarded. In accordance with
the Sykes-Picot Agreement Britain and France had drafted in secret in
1916, Britain and France ultimately took over the region as so-called
mandate or caretaker powers.
The French-administered region would later become Lebanon and Syria,
and the British region would become Israel, Jordan, and Iraq.
Today, many argue that a century of untold violence and instability —
culminating in ISIS’s brutal attempt t0 erase Middle Eastern borders
— might have been avoided if only each of the region’s peoples had
achieved independence after World War I.
But as the King-Crane Commission discovered back in 1919, ethnic and
religious groups almost never divide themselves into discrete units.
Nor do the members of each group necessarily share a vision of how
they wish to be governed.
The King-Crane report is still a striking document — less for what
it reveals about the Middle East as it might have been than as an
illustration of the fundamental dilemmas involved in drawing, or not
drawing, borders.
Indeed, the report insisted on forcing people to live together through
complicated legal arrangements that prefigure more recent proposals.
Among other things, the authors concluded that dividing Iraq into
ethnic enclaves was too absurd to merit discussion. Greeks and Turks
only needed one country because the “two races supplement each other.”
The Muslims and Christians of Syria needed to learn to “get on
together in some fashion” because “the whole lesson of modern social
consciousness points to the necessity of understanding ‘the other
half,’ as it can be understood only by close and living relations.”
But the commissioners also realized that simply lumping diverse
ethnic or religious groups together in larger states could lead to
bloody results.
Their report proposed all sorts of ideas for tiered, overlapping
mandates or bi-national federated states, ultimately endorsing a vision
that could be considered either pre- or post-national, depending on
one’s perspective.
In addition to outlining several autonomous regions, they proposed
that Constantinople (now Istanbul) become an international territory
administered by the League of Nations, since “no one nation can
be equal to the task” of controlling the city and its surrounding
straits, “least of all a nation with Turkey’s superlatively bad record
of misrule.”
Although the authors had been tasked with drawing borders, it
seems that once they confronted the many dilemmas of implementing
self-determination, they developed a more fluid approach to nationhood
and identity.
Disagreement among the region’s residents about their own future
certainly helped the commission reach this conclusion. The
commissioners traveled from city to city accepting petitions and
taking testimony, compiling a rare record of Arab popular opinion
from the period. This early polling exercise captured a wide range
of views–some overlapping, some irreconcilable.
Some 80 percent of those interviewed favored the establishment of a
“United Syria” — an outcome that, far from settling the question
of what self-determination would look like, forced the commission to
wrestle with the crucial issue of what should happen to minorities.
Many of the Christians living in this hypothetical future state,
particularly those in the Mount Lebanon region, spoke out forcefully
against being part of a larger, Muslim-dominated entity. Many called
for an “Independent Greater Lebanon,” whose territory would be roughly
equivalent to that of the modern state of Lebanon.
The commissioners’ proposed solution was to grant Lebanon “a sufficient
measure of local autonomy” so as not to “diminish the security of
[its] inhabitants.” But their explanation for why this autonomy
should fall short of complete independence seems to challenge the
logic of self-determination: “Lebanon would be in a position to exert
a stronger and more helpful influence if she were within the Syrian
state, feeling its problems and needs and sharing all its life,
instead of outside it, absorbed simply in her own narrow concerns.”
The broader conclusion they reached about human affairs was similarly
at odds with the principle of self-determination, and it anticipated
the 21st century’s recurring debates about where the Middle East’s
borders really belong. “No doubt the quick mechanical solution of
the problem of difficult relations is to split the people up into
little independent fragments,” they wrote. “But in general, to attempt
complete separation only accentuates the differences and increases
the antagonism.”
Even when they conceded exceptions — for instance, in the “imperative
and inevitable” separation of the Turks and Armenians given the Turks’
“terrible massacres” and “cruelties horrible beyond description” —
King, Crane, and their team nonetheless concluded that “a separation
… involves very difficult problems” and could easily backfire.
Ultimately, the King-Crane proposal relied on European or American
supervision, through the mandate system, to fudge different degrees
of sovereignty and ensure minority rights in multi-national states.
Placing different mandates under the same mandatory power became
an easy way to separate peoples while maintaining an administrative
link between them: Syria and Mesopotamia, for instance, could both
be under British supervision, while Turkey and Armenia could both be
overseen by the United States.
There is a telling condescension to the commissioners’
insistence on foreign administration as the best way to implement
“self-determination,” but it wasn’t that different from the widely
shared belief at the time that oversight from a supra-national body
like the League of Nations would also be necessary to ensure minority
rights in the new nations of Eastern Europe.
In some ways, it also wasn’t that different from the British and
French belief, evident in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, that continued
imperial rule was necessary to manage local differences. There are
echoes of this conviction in the anti-nationalist imperial nostalgia
that exists in some quarters today.
Indeed, part of the reason the British and French felt so comfortable
drawing “arbitrary” borders was that they believed they would
remain in a position to manage relations across them. In this sense,
Anglo-French imperialism relied on controlling borders and suppressing
self-determination within the region, while the King-Crane commission
was more interested in trying to find a balance between them.
This balance has yet to be achieved. Today, some people argue that
Iraq would be better off divided into smaller states, and that Syria
might split up on its own, while others — including ISIS — have
insisted that the solution is to do away entirely with borders like
the one between Iraq and Syria and to create a much larger entity.
But both solutions, along with the countless alternative maps proposed
for the region, remain focused on redrawing borders rather than
transcending them. And for what it’s worth, neither a subdivided
Syria nor a union between Syria and Mesopotamia were outcomes that
many locals campaigned for when King and Crane came to visit.
All of this suggests a need to look beyond the current paradigm of
borders. The people of Scotland, for example, recently decided that
their preferred relationship with London involved a mix of dependence
and independence rather than leaving the U.K. altogether or allowing
England to have total sovereignty over their affairs. And in Syria,
a federated arrangement that parcels out control of the country’s
territory without breaking it apart could be a faster route to peace
than complete victory by any one side.
Of course, recognizing the limitations of nation-states, in the Middle
East or elsewhere, does not imply that with a little more foresight the
Arab world could have transitioned directly from Ottoman imperialism
to post-national European modernity.
Historical forces worked against implementing more flexible
alternatives to the nation-state system then, and they still do today.
But the current regional uncertainty may require the same kind of
imagination the King-Crane commission brought to its analysis.
A century later, it’s clear that the question of what political
arrangements can help people “get on together in some fashion”
remains just as difficult as ever.
From: Baghdasarian
NATURE PROTECTION MINISTRY ARMED
18:07 February 17, 2015
EcoLur
Nature Protection Minister Aramayis Grigoryan submitted for the
approval of the Armenian Government a draft resolution on providing
guns to a number of specially protected areas of nature. Under
the resolution, Directors, Deputy Directors, Department Heads
and Inspectors of “Sevan National Park”, “Dilijan National Park”,
“Arpi Litch National Park”, “Khosrov Forest” State Reserve, Zangezour
Biospheric Complex, and Reserve Park Complex will receive guns.
“Sevan National Park” will be in the first place with its armament
level, where 110 guns will be provided followed by Zangezour Biospheric
Complex – 74 guns, “Dilijan National Park” – 53, “Khosrov Forest”
State Reserve – 47, Reserve Park Complex – 21. The list will be
finalized by “Arpi Litch National Park” by 18 guns.
From: A. Papazian
LAKE SEVAN WATER BALANCE ELEMENT AND LEVEL CHANGE DYNAMICS FOR 2002-2014
13:03 February 17, 2015
Levon Vardanyan, Director of State Non-Commercial Organization
Recently a number of news websites have published articles about the
changes in Lake Sevan level, magnitude of lake balance components,
forecasts about the lake level, which are not substantiated.
The system observing water outlets from Lake Sevan and inflows through
Arpa-Sevan tunnel is equipped with up-to-date equipment; consequently,
there is no need for theoretical calculations and presentation of
observation figures, as the factual value of these components are
available.
Below is the change of the lake level for 2002-2014:
In 2002- 2004 the hydrometeorological conditions were favourable for
the increase in the lake level: 2007 and 2010 were also favourable
for the increase in the lake level, as these two years were favourable
from hydrological viewpoint.
2008, 2012, 2013 and 2014 experienced lack of water, 2012 and 2014
should be outlined, as the most lack of water was recorded in these
very years, resulted with large water outlets from the lake and
negative shift in the lake level.
Daily average volume of 1.4 million cum let out in irrigation seasons
is a completely substantiated value, as the water volume let out from
the lake has extremely different value in different hours of the day,
and nobody and nothing, but the equipment, was able to record the
water volume flowing through the tunnel.
What about the changes in Lake level, as of January 1, 2002 the lake
level made up 1896.32 meters, while as of 1 January 2015 the lake
level was 1900.13 meters, i.e. the total increase made up 3.81 meters,
where an increase of 2.47 meters made up for 2002-2007 and 1.34 meters
for 2008-2014 (including added 20 cm based on the specification of
land surveying).
During spring floods the highest indicators were recorded in 2007 and
2010, 2002-2004 also had high indicators, while 2008, 2012, 2013 and
2014 recorded low values.
What about forecasts in regard with changes in lake level during 2015,
it should be said that factors needed for the change in the lake level
– available snow reserve and hydrometereological conditions are more
favourable than for 2014, while the forecasts for the change in the
lake level will be presented in the third week of March.
AMULSAR: EVEN “RESPONSIBLE” MINING IS DESTRUCTIVE – DR. ANAHID SHIRINIAN-ORLANDO
17:00 February 17, 2015
Pan-Armenian Environmental Front
Lydian International Limited company, registered in an offshore zone,
presented a document entitled “Amulsar Project, November 2014” to
Armenians in the Diaspora. This document is superficial, misleading
and incomplete. This is what thinks Anahit Shirinian-Orlando, an
environmental scientist-engineer living in Los Angeles, who says No
to mining at Amulsar.
There is a complete absence of any hydrological study. For example,
there is no assessment of how the mining operation will affect the
quantity and quality of the water of Vorotan River, of Arpa River, all
the small streams on the slopes, as well as the Spandarian Reservoir.
In particular, I found the claim on page 9, “zero discharge into
environment” to be completely misleading. For one thing, the explosions
at the mine will cause earthquake tremors in the surrounding villages,
such that the houses will shake, and immense clouds of dust from these
explosions, as well as from rock crushing operations, (containing
toxic heavy metals, such as Arsenic, Cadmium, radioactive Uranium,
and many other heavy metals), will fill the air and the lungs of
the inhabitants, as well as settle on pastures, on streams, on all
surfaces, poisoning and killing slowly every living organism. (Just
look a little further, at Kajaran mine, and see how these explosions
are affecting the health and lives (shortening the life spans) of
the locals.
Heap-leach pad technology is nothing new (look here). The pad’s
integrity fails in time (cracks, etc.) and the cyanide leachate
contaminates the ground below and around the pad, thus, the
groundwater and/or nearby streams become contaminated with cyanides
and heavy metals (no one can guarantee that the 3mm geomembrane
layer placed at the bottom of the platform will not erase after a
few decades). Besides, the heap itself is subject to landslides.
Amulsar mountain formation has a water tunnel running along on one
side and a gas pipeline on the other, both will be compromised by
earthquake tremors from mine explosions.
Reading the document, it is not clear how much tax Lydian will pay
to the local government, as well as to the central government. For
example, Lydian should pay royalties to the government of Armenia,
as well as taxes and waste dumping fees. Furthermore, it is not clear
how much money will be allocated to reclamation after the mining ends.
Since reclamation is a capital-intensive operation, there should be
guarantees to the government that it will be performed at the end. One
such guarantee will be to deposit the capital allocated for reclamation
in a separate account to be used only for land reclamation after the
mining is over.
I can write more comments on the documernt. I just wish to remind
Lydian, that many members of the village communities of Gendevaz and
Jermuk are strongly opposed to mining. Also, there are profitable
alternatives to digging for gold and silver, such as constructing
a cheese producing factory and exporting delicious cheeses from the
pastures and grasslands of Amulsar.
It is the hope of people living in Armenia, as well as all Armenians,
that instead of mining, investors will shift their interest to
non-destructive enterprises, because even “responsible” mining is
destructive (even though it’s less destructive compared to previous
methods).
SIX CASES OF ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AND LAND SEIZURES DETECTED IN YEREVAN WITHIN ONE WEEK
12:45 February 17, 2015
EcoLur
As the official website of Yerevan Municipality informs, six cases of
illegal construction and land seizures were detected in Yerevan within
one week and administrative protocols were drawn up in this regard.
Two illegal constructions were demolished. Six constructions were
carried out with the violation of construction organization rules.
From: Baghdasarian
305 ADMINISTRATIVE PROTOCOLS DRAWN UP FOR DUMPING GARBAGE IN IMPROPER PLACES IN YEREVAN WITHIN ONE MONTH
12:21 February 17, 2015
EcoLur
Yerevan Municipality employees drew up 69 administrative protocols for
dumping garbage in improper places in Yerevan. As the official website
of Yerevan Municipality informs, at the meeting of 16 February Mayor
Taron Margaryan assigned to set special control over the enforcement
of protocols having been drawn up. “During one month 305 administrative
protocols were drawn up against natural and legal entities, who dumped
garbage in improper places. Nevertheless, when analyzing the protocols
and charges made based on them, it was found out only 24 charges were
made, which is unacceptable,” Mayor Taron Margaryan said.
From: Baghdasarian
HRAPARAK: ARFD IS NOT GOING TO RETURN TO RULING COALITION
‘Hraparak’ paper asked the head of ARF-Dashnaktsutyun Party’s
parliamentary faction Armen Rustamyan to comment on the possibility of
ARFD Party’s return to the ruling coalition after Armenian President
Serzh Sargsyan recalled the Armenian-Turkish protocols from the
parliament.
“We have never conditioned our relations with the authorities by the
Armenian-Turkish protocols. We submitted demands of 7 points, only
one of which is related to the protocols, while the others remain on
the agenda. We repeatedly said that we will start cooperating closely
with a political force – be it the authorities or the opposition –
that will initiate a process aimed at implementation of those 7
points. We urge our colleagues to return to it,” A. Rustamyan said.
18.02.15, 12:00