A gunner of war under promises of peace

on July 10, 2023 “Following Pashinyan’s search for the gunner of the war. Before and after the war” We published an analysis in the article, where according to the chronology and political moment, we presented what Nikol Pashinyan considered the trigger of the war. Of course, during this period, the number of reasons for war already voiced by Pashinyan has increased.

And now he considers His Holiness and the Armenian Apostolic Church to be war mongers because they dare to say during the liturgy that they bless the Republic of Artsakh and speak about the rights of Artsakh Armenians.

And it is nothing that the former presidents or the opposition forces state that today they cannot imagine the return to Artsakh in any way, it is not realistic, and that a number of issues must be resolved for this, which may not be possible in the coming years. In other words, there is political manipulation in Pashinyan’s speech here as well.

On the other hand, it is possible, isn’t it, to ensure that the Armenian graves are not destroyed, the Armenian traces are not destroyed by Baku, so that the people of Artsakh can either visit the graves of their children, husbands, parents, or carry out the exhumation and bring the bodies of their relatives to Armenia. Is this an act of war or an international human right?

Another thing: when, for example, Pashinyan’s opponents say that the Artsakh page should not be closed, they mean that, first of all, not to forget the victory of the first Artsakh war, those who gave their lives for the sake of a centimeter of land for 30 years, their biographies, and deal with what I said about.

Can the mentions of the soldiers, officers, commanders who died in the same 44-day war in the form of articles, or the presence of the Artsakh flag near the graves in Yerablur be considered a trigger of war tomorrow? First of all, this is called not closing the Artsakh page, and this cannot be a trigger for war, as Nikol Pashinyan claims, and what is the question: does Aliyev demand it?

By the way, during the days of the 44-day war, on October 16, 2020, while sending off the reservists who were leaving Yerevan for the Artsakh war, he said:

“You go there to protect your bedrooms, to protect your bedroom entrances, to protect your porches, to protect your buildings, to protect your yards.”

In other words, the outcome of the 44-day war was directly related to the security of Armenia, but not in the context that many people like to say, but in terms of the geographical position, which was a certain geopolitical playing card in our hands. And in reality, the Republic of Armenia has been the guarantor of Artsakh’s security for 30 years, and when it ceased to be, we lost Artsakh, yes, weakening the security of Armenia geographically.

But even in the case of the results of the 44-day war, it was possible to have as strong security as possible and not to lose territories from Armenia. This is a separate discussion topic.

In this context, let’s not forget the revolution or evolution of Pashinyan’s views on the status of Artsakh, which 168.amas well presented in detail.

Let’s go back to the topic of whether or not to provoke a war.

168.ampresented in detail after the war is pwar warnings chronology, and how Nikol Pashinyan has shown himself, having these warnings in hand, what provocative steps he has taken, from various statements to the participants of the July victory in Sardarapat reward A month before the 44-day war.

By the way, back in 2019, when Artak Davtyan was the head of the GSH, our with information During the consultations in the General Assembly, the possibility of a war was also highly assessed, it was even mentioned that the next war will be more large-scale than the April 2016 war. Moreover, Davtyan had this idea on one occasion said also during the interview given to Satik Seyranyan.

Here it is worth remembering how Pashinyan was after the change of power in 2018 refusal considers the formula “territories in exchange for peace” unacceptable, and then repeatedly states that if territories were handed over, he would be considered a traitor. And this before the war, during the war, and after it.

Let’s remember Pashinyan’s famous confession: “We could have prevented the war, which would have resulted in the same situation without the casualties.” Why was this not done, why on the 4th day of the war, the former head of the RA Armed Forces General Onik Gasparyan? the offer not accepted. Maybe it was needed.

And now, when Nikol Pashinyan considers his party the “party of peace” and the Church or the opponents as the party of war, it is ridiculous.

Why, because in the 8 years of Pashinyan’s rule, we got the 44-day war of 2020 with several thousands of victims, territorial losses and the document of November 9, by which the territories held by the army were surrendered, this was followed by the May 2021 Azerbaijani invasion of the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia, but during that time Nikol Pashinyan continued to promise peace in pre-election meetings. Selected.

And months after that, we had the November battles of 2021, the September battles of 2022, during which we had more than 200 casualties in a few hours, we had territorial losses, Azerbaijan entered Jermuk.

Moreover, after the 2021 elections, Pashinyan also announced that his “Civil Pact” party received votes from Armenian citizens in the elections. A mandate to open an era of peaceful development for Artsakh.

And what? Artsakh was depopulated in 2023.

Now who is the war party, and should we believe the peace promises of such a government? By the way, the enemy can wage a war in supposedly peaceful conditions, with supposedly peaceful weapons.

And what Pashinyan says is that he decides the RA foreign policy and no one has the right to oppose it. Very well, in that case, let’s remind Pashinyan again that the 44-day war happened because the foreign policy he drew failed, secondly, the war is conducted by the state, and he is in RA martial law under the conditions assumed the authority of the supreme commander, why is he not responsible for the defeat in the war, and those who implement his foreign policy, why was he left only to the army, which was suddenly decided to be made a reserve?

Promises about peace, even unfulfilled ones, do not “water down” the responsibility for wars, their results and consequences.

—