Author: Babken Chilingarian

ArmInfo.It may sound strange, but the process of dismantlement of the Third Republic was perhaps launched when the Republic was actually in the making, Doctor of  History Hayk Demoyan said in an interview with ArmInfo.   

“It was Armenia’s first President Levon Ter-Petrosyan who announced  that by stating that Armenia and the Armenian nation did not need a  national ideology. It would not have been so serious if the president  had offered an alternative based on an aim – independent statehood,  free of corruption and stable, with all the conditions for further  strengthening,” Mr Demoyan said. 

It is the lack of this tradition that caused Armenian statehood to  follow various trajectories, which ruled out building up a powerful  state with a strong army as its basis. The result was a national  disaster in 2020. And the Armenian people has now reached a  stalemate, including due to misusing its own energy accumulated by  the spring of 2018. That enabled foreign forces to use this energy to  achieve goals far from Armenia’s interests. 

According to Mr Demoyan, a group of people came to power in Armenia  in 2018 after a predesigned long- term programme was carried out in  the country, which was possible due to the previous years of  distortion of the historical potential of Armenia and of the Armenian  people by Armenia’s political, economic and academic elite and – in a  broader sense – by the Armenian Diaspora.  

“And it was due to that distortion that the good intentions of our  intellectuals, the architects of the 1988 Movement aimed at building  up a powerful Armenian state, led to the formation of a cannibal  state over decades. Human rights protection gave way to capital  accumulation and a string of unsolved murders, which was the result  of transformation of some of the architects of the Third Republic,”  he said. 

From bad to worse, decisions in conflict with state interests were  accompanied by a decision on higher education and intellect not being  necessary as components of social development. As a result, the  decision- makers decided to turn the sensible people into insensible  masses by means of the major degeneration tool, the TV set.  

“And here is the main point. The people that considered the Armenian  Genocide, Tsisternakaberd [the Memorial to the Genocide victims],  Artsakh’s independence and Armenia’s sovereignty a redline and part  of the system of values only yesterday, are unwilling to discuss the  issues now for the simple reason that they had over three decades  been victims of moral terrorism by decision-makers in Armenia. And  the once impossible has not turned into the possible,” Mr Devoyan  said. 

ArmInfo. The results of the Pashinyan-Aliyev meeting mediated by President of the European Union Charles Michel have once more proved the statements that the  Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations on normalization of relations are  progressing in line with Azerbaijan’s agenda, reads a statement by  the Resistance Movement. 

“To retain his post, Armenia’s Premier Nikol Pashinyan has put  Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh up to geopolitical auction. Armenia has  reached the line when not only Nagorno-Karabakh’s future, but also  Armenia’s sovereignty and its being an independent entity in the  South Caucasus will be questioned.

“Charles Michel’s statement does not mention the Nagorno-Karabakh  people’s right to self-determination, which is incorporated in the  legally binding Armenia-EU agreement, or the OSCE Minsk Group  co-chairs’ mandate. It does not contain a single word about a need  for determining Nagorno-Karabakh’s status, which is in conflict with  the statement by the European Union on November 19, 2020. The parties  also avoided using such terms as ‘Nagorno-Karabakh’ and ‘people of  Nagorno-Karabakh’. Instead, it contains the phrase ‘ethnic Armenian  population in Karabakh’ in the context of Azerbaijan ensuring the  security and rights of the Karabakh Armenians. It means that, under  the Pashinyan-Aliyev agreement, the Karabakh Armenians are a national  minority in Azerbaijan,” reads the statement. 

Mr Michel’s statement also mentions “transit.between different parts  of Armenia via Azerbaijan,” which entails extremely dangerous  consequences, including a possibility of Azerbaijan’s further illegal  claims to Armenia’s sovereignty and territories. 

“Stating that Nikol Pashinyan’s policy is in conflict with the  interests of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and poses a threat to our  state and may result in Turkification of Armenia, facilitating  Armenians’ expatriation from Artsakh, we reaffirm the following: 

“Nikol Pashinyan is not legitimate and has no mandate by the Armenian  people to make further concessions and serve the Turkish-Azerbaijani  agenda. The agreements reached with him do not reflect the Armenian  people’s opinion and are not valid. Karabakh cannot be part of  Azerbaijan regardless of its status nor will Armenia’s territories be  surrendered to Azerbaijan,” the statement reads. 

The authors stress that the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations must not  be normalized under threat of force or use of force. Under the  circumstances, Nikol Pashinyan’s removal from power and formation of  a government of national agreement is the only solution, they state. 

According to the statement by President of the European Council  Charles Michel following his meeting with the Armenian and  Azerbaijani leaders, “the leaders agreed on the need to proceed with  unblocking the transport links. They agreed on the principles  governing transit between western Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan, and  between different parts of Armenia via Azerbaijan, as well as  international transport through communications infrastructure of both  countries. Notably they agreed on principles of border  administration, security, land fees but also customs in the context  of international transport. The Deputy Prime Ministers will take this  work forward in the coming days.”

The statement does not contain a single word about Nagorno-Karabakh’s  status. In his statement, Mr Michel used the term “Karabakh” instead  of “Nagorno-Karabakh”. The statement does not mention either the  trilateral agreements between the Armenian, Azerbaijan and Russian  leaders or other settlement principles. 

Moreover, after Mr Michel issued his statement, Google maps showed  the Armenian settlements and government agencies in Nagorno-Karabakh  under Azerbaijani names.