Category: News

What is the purpose of the uninvited guest? Vahe Hovhannisyan, a member of the “Alternative projects” group, wrote about this.

“Yesterday’s incident needs a deeper discussion. This fits into the government’s “every day something uglier” tactic. People came in large numbers for the festive liturgy, a very lovely church holiday. They had not planned anything other than liturgy, prayer, communion that day. And suddenly someone comes in who has been insulting their spiritual values ​​and sanctities for a long time. Obviously, there had to be an emotional reaction, uncontrollable emotions. The one who mocks and insults the Catholicos of All Armenians together with his ruling group.

For the people present at the liturgy in the church, the Blessed Sacrament is sacred. Someone is coming who has arrested high-ranking clerics, who are important authorities for these people, on trumped-up charges. He specially came to the church in the center of the capital, knowing very well how the believers present there treat him. He came specifically to provoke the people who had just come to the liturgy with his presence. Has he come to harm people? Has he come to spoil the holiday? Has he come to poison the atmosphere once again?

When he and his “few” make fun of the main actors of the opposition, he surely knows, doesn’t he, that they have a very large electorate and they are authorities for hundreds of thousands of citizens. He knows that he directly offends those hundreds of thousands. After that, what kind of reaction does he expect? With the same logic, after rudely insulting the leaders of the opposition, he can get up and go to their rally or congress, allegedly to participate peacefully. We should be ready for this too. There should be a unified position on how to treat an uninvited guest.

It is not possible to publicly insult members of a family and go to their family event. What is the purpose, after all? Provocation? Should he spoil all the holidays and rituals? Should there be joy only in his bus? “Happy bus” wording, as sarcastic, may be good, received, but it turns into “ugly bus”, which is very dangerous,” he wrote.

—

Jerusalem Times. The new alliance formed by Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia represents a population of 500 million.

The coming together of nuclear-armed Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, one of the world’s largest oil suppliers, Egypt, which controls the Suez Canal, and Turkey, a NATO member with an advanced defense industry, has the potential to change the Middle East, with implications for Israel.

“Turkey today” news channel

—

Yesterday, another scandal involving Nikol Pashinyan took place in the capital. Last week, he became the center of noise in the Yerevan Metro, when he met a woman from Artsakh and called her “runaways”, and yesterday he was already in St. Anne’s Church.

There was a liturgy in the church dedicated to Palm Sunday, and Nikol Pashinyan decided that as part of his campaign, he could enter the church hand in hand, pushing everyone forward. The church was crowded, and Pashinyan’s bodyguards, pushing people, made way for the latter to go and stand in the first row. People got nervous. As a result, a stampede began in the Church. Currently, 3 people have been arrested in connection with the case, 2 of them are twin brothers, high school students.

Rev. Vrtanes Baghalyan, spiritual pastor of Saint Hovhannes Church in Byurakan, at 168.am detailed how an official should behave in the church, or how a citizen should behave in the church in general, especially if he enters the church in the middle of the liturgy.

“If the person is an official and he is accompanied by security, it is appropriate that he should attend the liturgy on time. First of all, it would be correct for the church to be aware of the arrival of the official in question, so that a place can be reserved for him in the church so that he can go and sit, and for that it is desirable that he should be present from the beginning of the liturgy. And it is not appropriate for a government official to go late to the liturgy and then create a commotion in the church. And in case of being late for the liturgy, decency requires them to be patient and wait, rather than the security guards clearing the way, punching people, etc., Father Vrtanes Baghalyan noted.

According to the cleric, if Nikol Pashinyan wanted to attend the liturgy, he could have visited the Cathedral, or Saint Gregory the Illuminator Church in Yerevan, which is a bigger church, and there would be no need to create a commotion.

“Well, if a person arrived late to the liturgy, it would be desirable to at least stay until the end, if you just have to go in and out, then there is no point in pushing people to get there and stand in front of them. He could have lit his candle at the candlestick, prayed and left quietly, instead of being late, pushing him to go forward, looking at the school-aged boy, knowing full well what attitude a part of our society has towards his anti-church attitude. Knowing all this well, he should not have provoked. If you go somewhere and insult the family’s grandparents, father and mother, it is possible, isn’t it, that the children will retaliate? If you address the Most Reverend Patriarch by the name of a priest, you are not respectful, you may be disrespected by ordinary believers. The attitude towards the 2 arrested brothers was not improper, even more towards Gevorg Gevorgyan,” Mr. Vrtanes added.

It is also unacceptable for a priest to use disproportionate force against a citizen in the church, when they hit a child and then arrest him.

“That person entered the church to conduct an election campaign, which he did not have the right to do. I have not seen members of other parties come to the church and do pre-election campaign. There were so many people in the church, except for them, no one wore party symbols. That person, together with his security officers, obstructed the performance of the ritual ceremony in the church, which is criminally prosecuted. Of course, in this regard, we do not hope that he will be held responsible for this,” emphasized our interlocutor.

Father Vrtanes also recalled the incident that happened between NA Speaker Alen Simonyan and a citizen the other day, where the citizen approached Alen Simonyan and asked if they could talk, after which the NA Speaker said, “Take him here.” The priest considers such speech of an official unacceptable, saying that he has no right to call a citizen “this”.

“Such officials should not be in our society.

The former officials would never have allowed such behavior in the church,” emphasized Father Vrtanes Baghalyan.

—

In connection with the incident recorded in Saint Anna Church yesterday, Nikol Pashinyan’s chief of staff Arayik Harutyunyan issued a video message in which he blames the Armenian Church and the Catholicos of All Armenians for the situation.

In response 168.amto the question of how will you react to this statement, the information system of the Mother See answered: we are deeply sorry for what happened in St. Anne’s Church on Palm Sunday, which disrupted the festive prayer atmosphere prevailing in the sanctuary.

“The incident recorded during the Prime Minister’s short visit should be considered as a consequence of the authorities’ anti-church campaign and illegal, non-canonical actions that hurt the religious feelings of believers and give rise to such uprisings.

Therefore, instead of unjustly accusing the Armenian Church and the Catholicos of All Armenians, it is necessary to reflect and review the positions taken by the authorities towards the Church, clergy and national-spiritual values, which are harmful to the nation and divide our people, leading to such painful phenomena.mentioned from the Mother See.

—

Although US President Donald Trump temporarily stopped the attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure, declaring that the negotiations with Iran are progressing in a positive direction, he again started threatening the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The US president has stated that if Iran does not immediately open the Strait of Hormuz, the US will destroy all power plants, oil fields and Kharg Island. By the way, in another reference, Trump said that Iran probably will not be able to protect that island.

“If for any reason a deal is not reached soon, and if the Strait of Hormuz is not immediately open for business, we will end our wonderful visit to Iran by blowing up and completely destroying all of their power plants, oil wells and Kharg Island that we have not deliberately touched yet,” Trump said.

He also did not rule out attacks on Iran’s water purification plants. At the same time, Washington is conducting serious negotiations with what Trump says is a “new, more reasonable” government in Iran and understands that a peace agreement is inevitable. In an interview with the Financial Times and later in a conversation with journalists on Air Force One, the head of the White House also stated that he would like to “take Iran’s oil”, but at the same time assured that the negotiations between Washington and Tehran are going “very well” and he is “almost certain” that a peace agreement will be signed.

In a conversation with journalists, the US president said that contacts with Iran are ongoing, both directly and indirectly, and claimed that Tehran is partially opening the Strait of Hormuz. However, he did not clarify what he meant by direct negotiations.

“We are progressing extremely well in these negotiations. But with Iran, you never know, we negotiate with them, then we always have to bomb,” Trump said, referring to both the B-52 bombers and the US withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement. According to him, there will be a deal, but he did not rule out the opposite scenario either. Trump also stated that the Iranian regime is already “crushed”.

Spokesman of Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ismail Bagheri, also stated that Iran has received messages from mediators that indicate the United States’ willingness to negotiate, but the US proposals are “unrealistic, illogical and exaggerated”.  “Our position is clear. We are under military aggression. Therefore, all our efforts and forces are focused on self-defense,” said Bagheri.

168.amRussian analyst Alexander Khramchikhin said in a conversation with According to him, the statements according to which Washington is ready to strike Iran if the latter does not ensure the opening of the Strait of Hormuz are simultaneously accompanied by signals of readiness to negotiate, but this “dual message” creates a strategic deadlock rather than an effective pressure mechanism.

“The Strait of Hormuz is one of the key points of the world energy system, through which a significant part of oil supplies pass, so it is not only an economic but also a security lever for Iran, which Iran uses well during this war. For this reason, any demand under threats is perceived in Tehran not as a negotiation proposal, but as coercion. Acceptance of such demands in that political system of Iran will mean a loss of internal legitimacy.

In addition, it appears that Washington’s proposed points for Iran are seen as capitulation: sharp limits on the nuclear program, reduction of regional influence and control of military capabilities. These demands are beyond the logic of classical compromise and are closer to coercion. As a result, the negotiations are deadlocked before they start, because one side demands the maximum concession, and the other cannot accept it,” the analyst said. He believes that this controversial approach has several consequences for the United States.

According to the analyst, this policy creates a trust deficit.

“When there are both threats of strikes and calls for negotiations at the same time, they are perceived as an inconsistency in strategy. For Iran, this means that even in the case of negotiations, there are no guarantees that they will not be interrupted by strikes.  In addition, if the threats do not come true, and the US constantly threatens, the US loses its role. The Strait of Hormuz may not become an open channel, but a conflict zone with global economic consequences. The complication of international positions is also a consequence for the USA. European and Asian partners, dependent on cross-strait energy carriers, tend to support stability, not force pressure. Thus, the tough rhetoric of the US may not receive full international support, limiting Washington’s ability to maneuver.

In this situation, a classic diplomatic impasse is formed. The US cannot fully back down from its tough demands without losing credibility, but it also cannot force Iran to accept them without a major escalation. Iran, for its part, cannot accept conditions that are perceived as a limitation of sovereignty, but is also not interested in an open military conflict,” Khramchikhin noted, continuing that a difficult situation is being created where the threat of force and the offer of negotiations do not complement each other, but mutually cancel each other.

According to the expert, this not only makes it difficult to reach a concrete agreement, but also deepens the crisis of confidence.

“This is like a strategic impasse without a clear way out. It is also obvious that the Trump administration is looking for a way out of the current situation, but that possible way out is looking more and more vague in the background of the prolongation of the war,” he said.

As for the South Caucasus, the analyst believes that as long as Iran effectively confronts and restrains its opponents, no developments are expected in the South Caucasus.

“It is generally understood that as a result of this conflict, the balance of power will change, which will affect the South Caucasus,” he said.

—

On March 27, a Facebook live with the caption “Peace is dignity”. ether  Nikol Pashinyan, referring to the claims of his political opponents that the peace established between Armenia and Azerbaijan is not dignified, said:

“With what? are justification they that the thesis, of justifications one it is, that Azerbaijan, note having 2021, 2022, 2023 of years the events, invasion is implemented RA: sovereign area: First՝ that place is had no or of peace, other of conflict in the situation: Preceding of the region all the invasions two from the sides place are had no or of peace, other of conflict because of, of war because of»:

In other words, the leader of Armenia is not referring to 2020. A tripartite signed after the 44-day war to the announcement, the first point of which clearly defines that after November 10 “the parties stop at their positions”, and emphasizes that Azerbaijan has not fulfilled the points of the tripartite declaration, justifies Baku’s steps beyond that. Even if we accept that the tripartite declaration of November 9 was a cease-fire document, and in fact it was, then why didn’t we immediately try to restore the losses of the army after the war, why didn’t the state live in the conditions dictated by the unfinished conflict?

In addition to this, Pashinyan does not mention in the text of his justification that it is about the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia, and whether there was a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, whether Armenia officially declared war on Azerbaijan, or vice versa. Were the sovereign territories of RA the subject of negotiations, if we do not count some topics related to Meghri, but it was in the context of the Karabakh conflict, we are talking about something else.

Accordingly, can we say that Pashinyan legitimizes Baku’s illegal military operations against Armenia, in the event that after the 44-day period, Armenia did not invade the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan, and the fact that in the 1990s and after that both sides made positional improvements cannot be compared to the Azerbaijani invasions of 2021-2023? Սա՝ first:

Secondly, can we say that Pashinyan admits that the invasions of Baku into the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia were aimed at military, military-political and political pressure on Armenia in the context of the Artsakh issue, especially when Pashinyan himself in the background of the September 2022 military operations had confessed.

«Thus, Azerbaijan expresses its dissatisfaction with the results of the 44-day war, taking into account that NK has a contact line, the protection and security of which is guaranteed by the Russian Federation.  Now I can’t say many details…”

Another confession of Pashinyan had done 2021 in the context of the May Azerbaijani advances, that the army was given a political order not to fight, because the extraordinary NA elections were ahead. 2021 Azerbaijani invasions in May and 2022 between the September battles there were also the November 2021 battles. And the coordinated military operation of the Azerbaijani-Turkish tandem on November 16, 2021 was also in the context of aspirations related to the corridor of Nakhichevan, Zangezur and Lachin. As a result of the combat operations of those days, according to information published in the Azerbaijani media maps,the enemy’s armed forces were able to go to key and strategically important heights in the direction of the Eastern Sevan mountains or the mountain range towards Karvachar, and also captured several Armenian positions as a result of the battles around the Kilisali mountain. Azerbaijan aimed to keep the Lachin Corridor under its visual control, which, perhaps, it partially succeeded. Did the current government of RA not calculate all this? Why did Azerbaijan manage to carry out 3 such military operations in the sovereign territory of RA after 44 days? Are we dealing with a deal or criminal indifference – the conflict is not settled, we lived only for the finished in military and political conditions.

Third, although actual peace has been established at the cost of territorial and human losses, but if there is no final peace agreement, plus there are unresolved issues between Armenia and Azerbaijan, can we say that Baku can take local military steps that Pashinyan will justify?

And Pashinyan also mentioned in the above-mentioned live Facebook broadcast that the former military-political leadership of Artsakh appeared in Baku again due to the conflict, when Artsakh was depopulated and Baku could not kidnap people. Baku considers their trial and verdicts with fabricated articles as “Nuremberg”, when Pashinyan already claimed that peace has been established. And Pashinyan, in fact, justifying Aliyev’s “Nuremberg”, went too far and began to “play” the issue of their return.

“Continuation of the conflict reduces many times, if not makes it impossible to release them, and peace increases many times, if not guarantees their release.” he emphasized.

Yes, the release and return of the former military-political leadership of Artsakh is a political issue, and Pashinyan, in fact, says that if he does not win the upcoming elections, there should be no hope for their return at all. And giving back certainly comes at a price. In other words, the fact that the CP members say that they are working towards their return is actually what Pashinyan said in the broadcast of March 27. both Aliyev and Pashinyan are trying to turn the issue of the return of the former military-political leadership of Artsakh into a mutually beneficial deal.

And on March 30, Pashinyan made another Facebook post during the live broadcast   declared that before the peace he established, we only had a postponement of the war at the cost of casualties, injuries, lack of economic development and loss of independence.

Yes, it was possible to postpone the war, for better or for worse, but why couldn’t he do the same, why couldn’t he prevent the occupation of the sovereign territories of RA at the cost of several thousand casualties and territorial losses during the 44-day war? Moreover, Pashinyan says, after the four-day war in 2016, it became clear that “that means of payment has been exhausted.”

And why did he “get under it” or did he find out after coming to power, and when – before or after the 2020 war? Of course, before, which Pashinyan publicly admitted only after the war, it was necessary.

By the way, Pashinyan, considering today that after 2016, a different logic was operating, outside of the negotiation logic, on March 29, 2019, after meeting with Aliyev for several hours at the “Bristol” hotel in Vienna, he announced that  in the negotiation language, the parties should try not to harm each other, not to look for winners and losers, because the conflict has deep roots, it is not a simple situation.

And days after that, in a conversation with Armenian journalists, the same Pashinyan claimed that The formula “new war, new territories” in no way casts a shadow on the peaceful settlement process, on the contrary, it emphasizes the importance of a peaceful settlement, although this caused the anger of Baku. In other words, Pashinyan transferred the statement made by the former Minister of Defense of the Republic of Armenia in military logic to the political dimension and did not see any danger in the conditions of an unsettled conflict. But today he sees the danger of war from every word, when, as he says, we have established peace, there is no longer a post-2016 situation. Isn’t it a paradox?

—