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?

—

“Strong Armenia” party council member Narek Karapetyan writes. “Territory of the homeland is an easy concession, he says, it is necessary.
“National dignity is an easy concession,” he says. He always has something that cannot be given up – his chair.

More than anything, above everything!
He loves his… chair in life.

It’s time for a leader who will ensure a strong peace, that’s what we really need.”

—

“We are living in very difficult and amazing times, when you could not imagine in your most fantastic dream that one day they will not allow you to talk about Artsakh, they will try to close the issue of Artsakh in every possible way. right now we have a situation where courage is required to speak about Artsakh.” 168 Artsakh public figure Nare Simonyan raised his concerns about Artsakh during the TV program “Zara has a question”.

He regretfully noted that not only the enemies outside our borders, but also the authorities of the Republic of Armenia are interested in closing the Artsakh issue.

“They seem to have become the primary beneficiary of closing the Artsakh issue with the Aliyev regime,” he added.

While presenting his vision of the return to Artsakh, Nare Simonyan emphasized: “At this stage, we understand that we cannot return to Artsakh in 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, but it is very important to talk about that right, to raise the voice that about 150,000 Artsakh citizens have very important basic rights that are violated. it is the rights to live and create in their homeland, it is also the right to self-determination, which is less talked about, but should be talked about.

On different international platforms, we should talk about the right of return, talk about our violated rights and let the international community or international actors offer options, because when you don’t talk about your problem, everyone can consider that problem closed.”

To the observation that the raising of these just concerns is often rebuked by the authorities, for example, when Pashinyan considers it harmful to talk about ethnic cleansing in Artsakh, or the famous episode of the subway, as well as when the authorities avoid the word “Artsakh”, our interlocutor responded that all this is the result of both internal political and external coercion.

“In the domestic political field, the authorities of the day are trying to find internal enemies and consolidate their electorate against those enemies, those enemies are the primary bearers of national values ​​and national identity: Artsakh, the Armenian Apostolic Church… Nikol Pashinyan uses this technology and, on the one hand, by inventing internal enemies, softens the perception of the external enemy, which is fatal and threatens us every day from the outside, and on the other hand, he mobilizes his electorate before the elections against the internal enemy.

The fact that he considers the people of Artsakh as enemies, calling them brothers and sisters, has been seen many times, and, yes, also in the episode of the subway, when the daughter of the hero of Artsakh showed in a very detailed, very appropriate and competent way that the people of Artsakh did not run away, the people of Artsakh fought, we saw that the theses that were previously circulated on the scale of fakes, sometimes also of his henchmen, Papoyan, Alensimonyan and others, Pashinyan’s mouth said: “Billions of taxes, you lived at the expense of our taxes, you left and ran away” etc., said the public figure from Artsakh.

To the clarification of where the peace agendas will take us, if the issues related to Artsakh are kept quiet, Nare Simonyan replied that by keeping these matters quiet, this is a very clear and clear way not to peace, but to bring new problems for us.

“Not talking about Artsakh, we are opening the way to Syunik, the Syunik corridor, Tavush, the so-called “return” of Azerbaijanis, Yerevan, etc. In other words, by renouncing our rights, we also give the enemy the opportunity to present new demands.

It is clear that this is not the way to peace. mere “peace” was chosen as a brand in the internal political struggle, but on the other hand, it is absurd that a government that has brought the most wars and the most defeats throughout history is talking about peace.

And already the authorities do not even dare to threaten their citizens with war. if we are not elected, there will be a war, even as if they say a month for the war. What does this mean, an agreement with the enemy, what are you hiding?

I am sure that with the way that the authorities of the day are leading us, we will not have peace, but will even more endanger the existence of the Republic of Armenia.

This is not the way of peace, this is the way of elimination,” concluded Nare Simonyan.

Details in the video

—

Nikol Pashinyan announces almost on a daily basis that “if the CP does not form a constitutional majority in the elections, then there will be a war.”

He made another such statement this morning on Facebook live, during which he called on the people to “stand up for peace”. Parallel to all this, Nikol Pashinyan and his teammates do not miss the opportunity to declare that “there is no longer peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan”, without answering the question whether they should remain in power forever so that there is peace in Armenia.

To what extent can Nikol Pashinyan’s threat to the people “there will be a war if I am not in power” affect people’s psychology, can this affect people’s orientation in the elections?

Psychologist Karine Nalchajyan, answering these questions, he said: at this pre-election stage, the tools that Nikol Pashinyan has in his hands are mostly outdated: wooing people, pretending to be a common man, etc.

“The working tool left in Nikol Pashinyan’s hands is to scare people with war. Fear is one of the deepest, most archaic feelings, and war, especially after seeing so much destruction and blood, people probably don’t want war the most.

So, out of the theses put forward by Nikol Pashinyan, only this can work to some extent, but I will not say that it will be very influential. Those people whose consciousness and ability to analyze are in place are not blinded by emotions, they understand very well that this power and peace are as far apart as the earth and the sky. of 168.am Karine Nalchajyan said in a conversation with

According to the psychologist, the situation in which Nikol Pashinyan has put himself, together with his team, is dangerous, because they do not say it openly, but they are already mocking the people.

“All this is from the genre of absurdity, this is a mockery of people, it says: ‘Do whatever you want, your song is sung.’ It is understandable, this causes laughter, disgust and other emotions, and at the same time, Nikol Pashinyan is not idle, he is doing business, he is advancing his plans, and that is in a hurry, for which he occupies the society with nonsense.

So, this behavior of his is already very dangerous, one should not despise and disgust him. With all this, they spoil the collective image of the Armenian nation, reduce the self-esteem of the Armenian people,” Karine Nalchajyan added.

Continuing, the psychologist said that the “color revolutions” that are happening in the world are preceded by a decrease in the self-esteem of nations, therefore, the pranks that are happening today are not done as an end in themselves.

“Today, many of us, don’t we, hear when people say: what kind of nation are we, what kind of people are we? This is what this government wants. Our collective opposition should work on this and raise the self-esteem of our people. If the authorities need the voice of the people, that’s why they took to the streets, that’s why people should understand that their voice is important and with that voice they can change things in this country,” emphasized Karine Nalchajyan.

—

Azerbaijan has found a new format to expand its territory at the expense of the Republic of Armenia. What is presented as the process of border demarcation between Armenia and Azerbaijan is not actually demarcation and demarcation, but a process of new occupation of Armenian territories without firing a shot. He expressed such a view 168 TVof Revue on the air of the program political scientist Hrant Mikayelyan՝ talking about the possible reasons for the decision to change the direction of the Georgia-Armenia gas pipeline.

The political scientist puts forward the hypothesis that the transfer of the 5.5-kilometer section of the Georgia-Armenia gas pipeline at the request of the Armenian side may also be related to the process of Armenia-Azerbaijan demarcation and new concessions.

“The following is happening today: Azerbaijan demands to receive all the directions where Armenia has advanced, and the directions where Azerbaijan has advanced, the Azerbaijani side, of course, is not going to give, that is, this process is not demarcation and demarcation, but in fact it is a process of new territorial conquests by Azerbaijan, simply without firing, with the agreement of the Armenian government and on the condition that there is no war, because Rubinyan and his ilk constantly talk that “peace you have to caress, caress, and in order to keep it you have to give in all the time”, they don’t know any other way to keep peace, now Azerbaijan is making new demands, and we see that Pashinyan has to give in some other parts as well. Regarding this specific episode, it will be clarified, but in general, we can comment that Azerbaijan is considering in different ways how to conquer new territories from Armenia.” commented Hrant Mikayelyan.

The political scientist recalled the Azerbaijani demand to hand over Verin Voskepar and several other villages in Tavush and the handover of the Goris-Kapan interstate road in 2021. in September, noting that, in fact, it was demarcation without demarcation.

“The Azerbaijanis, for example, can enter there one day and create a direct connection, and Azerbaijan can send in troops and share Tavush. there is a northern part, there is a southern part, and if the Kirantsov advance and Verin Voskepar are taken under their control, they will already completely share the territory of Tavush. Thus, this is just one example: how Azerbaijan has advances in various strategic border areas, which not only improve Azerbaijan’s position, but also worsen our situation. Let me remind you one more thing: demarcation without demarcation, which happened during the surrender of the Goris-Kapan road, when Azerbaijan seized and closed the road, the main road that connected Armenia with Iran and the south of Armenia with other territories of Armenia. This is the same format: Azerbaijan is trying to worsen the situation in Armenia, and the Armenian government is playing games, pretending to achieve peace.”

According to the political scientist: “When you give what you have to the enemy, so that the enemy can use it against you, it is not peace, it is a different type of war… And then, of course, you can threaten war, because all the keys and all the opportunities have been given to Azerbaijan for war.” added Hrant Mikayelyan.

The political scientist emphasizes that in 1918-20 The Republic of Azerbaijan, which considers itself the successor of the extremist union called “Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan”, actually has territorial ambitions for almost the entire territory of the Republic of Armenia and does not recognize the territorial integrity of the Republic of Armenia.

In this context, Hrant Mikayelyan also referred to the 1975 map of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the USSR, which was accepted as the basis for demarcation, noting that they are trying to mislead the public with statements about “cadastre paper” and “internationally recognized borders”, while the concept of “legal force” does not really exist at the international level.

“Of course, there are 10 basic international principles that are continuously violated, and among the first violators are Turkey and Azerbaijan, and nothing happens to them, for example, Turkey has occupied many areas in the north of Syria and is not returning them, it has also occupied Northern Cyprus, and where are the internationally recognized borders, or who forces Turkey to leave those areas?

Thus, legal force exists only when the parties have reached an agreement, the international community has recognized, there are force mechanisms that ensure the implementation of the agreement. If all these mechanisms are present, including the balance of power that ensures the protection of borders, then yes, but if we see that one side is constantly imposing, then it is clear that there is no peace and no territorial demarcation is taking place.

By the way, why is the map of 1989 not accepted as a basis, with the demarcation of which, for example, the Sotk mine completely passed within the borders of Soviet Armenia, but Azerbaijan takes the Soviet map of 1975, which is the most favorable for it? Very good. We accepted. But even this is not accepted by Azerbaijan as a fact, because after 2020, Azerbaijan has advanced about 220-250 km, and they have occupied our dominant heights. At the moment, the Azerbaijanis are located at an altitude of 3,200 meters, our forces are at an altitude of 2,600 meters, and our forces are much less protected, which are objectively in a vulnerable state, and all this is happening not because Azerbaijan is establishing peace, but on the contrary, Azerbaijan is preparing for war or at least preparing to constantly impose its desired solutions on Armenia. explains the political scientist.

According to the political scientist: It is beneficial for Pashinyan that Aliyev threatens Armenia with war.

Referring to the regional situation, Hrant Mikayelyan added that the war against Iran will have a very significant impact on the upcoming parliamentary elections in Armenia.

Full interview in the video.

—