Onik Gasparyan should also talk about the September 13 report of the Artsakh NSS

On April 20, with the article “What is behind Onik Gasparyan’s offer to speak at a closed meeting, what open questions are waiting for his open answer?” by article we referred to Onik Gasparyan, the former head of the General Staff of the RA Armed Forces statement-offer, which was the answer of the former Minister of Defense of the Republic of Armenia Seyran Ohanyan and media mogul Aram Gabrielyanov’s episodic statements and “declassifications” related to the 44-day war.

As of now, the authorities have ignored or rejected the proposal of the former head of the State Security Service to organize a closed meeting, to which Onik Gasparyan suggests involving key political and military positions held during the 2020 war, political and public figures with appropriate permission to access data containing state and service secrets, and relatives of dead and missing servicemen.

We asked the question in our article: what did the former head of the State Security Service not say during his two-day and nearly 10-hour interrogation at the 44-day investigative commission? 168.amthe wrote also, that the written analysis of Onik Gasparyan, the former head of the RA Armed Forces General Directorate, was attached to the report of the investigative commission headed by Andranik Kocharyan, with a limit of 70-80 pages.

And although the parliamentary opposition did not participate in the commission’s work, opposition MPs, for example, Gegham Manukyan, Tigran Abrahamyan, got acquainted with the report and the argued analysis of Onik Gasparyan.

Therefore 168.amhas tried From Tigran Abrahamyan, secretary of the NA “I have the honor” faction to find out if there is something that was not discussed by the former head of the General Assembly Onik Gasparyan, perhaps he expects that the opposition will have the opportunity to ask him questions this time, although their answers will not be reflected in the report.

– Onik Gasparyan’s speech, which is presented in the report and in a separate appendix, naturally expresses his approach, ideas about his decisions and actions during the war, and this happened in the presence of CP figures. A political group that is most responsible for the outcome of the 44-day war and its severe consequences. And what each official talks about his decisions and actions is another thing, and what is the reality is completely different. And in this situation, if Onik Gasparyan has something additional to say, especially if it is of great importance to the public, then it must be said, and sincerity and the truth will be appreciated afterwards.

– At the moment, the authorities consider the closed meeting pointless. In this case, how do you imagine the closed meeting of the former head of the General Assembly with the opposition? By the way, were there any such impulses from Onik Gasparyan?

– From the beginning, the position of our political force was that a closed-format meeting with the presence or participation of CP members will not solve any problem, and I myself have announced that I am not going to be a participant in such a meeting. If Onik Gasparyan considers that he has something important to say in terms of public interest and would like to meet, then the issue of its format will naturally be a subject of discussion.

– By the way, the close circle of the former head of the General Staff rushed to say that his demand to speak publicly is not correct, what is it, should he publicly tell what happened during the 44-day war?

– I don’t even want to know who thinks that there is no need for the former head of the General Directorate to speak publicly, perhaps everyone has their own approach. But we must not forget that Onik Gasparyan was a military man with the highest status, and he definitely has something to say to the public. It is clear to all of us that there are issues that can represent state and military secrets, but Pashinyan and his teammates made “declassifications” related to the circumstances of the war during the 6 years after the war, not to mention that quite a lot of time has passed, and some issues and decisions may not have the significance they had 6 years ago. Who is this? From this point of view, not speaking publicly can be seen as avoidance in terms of coming into direct contact with the public.

– What questions do you personally have to ask the former head of the GSH?

– Naturally, there are such questions:

First, regardless of the reports at that time, when the probability of war was high, why weren’t the troops brought to “preparation number one” in time, especially when, according to Nikol Pashinyan, reliable information about the start of the war was received on September 25, 2020?

Second, why is he not talking about the September 13 report of the National Security Service of Artsakh, because, according to reports, reliable information about the start of the war was recorded on that day, even probable days?

Third, According to Onik Gasparyan, why was there no result after the February 2021 statement of the General Staff?

fourth, was there pressure on him from outside to express his position and expose Pashinyan’s crime?

– I have other questions, but now we are not talking about them. And you, I’m sure, have ever communicated with Onik Gasparyan, possibly even long after the war, what impression did you get, as a military man in general, is his silence only due to the desire not to disclose information containing state secrets?

– Some may consider me an optimist, but, according to me, the reason for Onik Gasparyan’s not speaking is that, in his opinion, voicing anything in the case of the Pashinyan government will not solve any problem. And maybe that’s why he doesn’t want to talk, but as an official with great responsibility, if not completely, then in general terms, he should express what he has to say publicly.

—