Turkish commandant Nikol Pashinyan and his ‘great’ predecessors have entered a new phase of the struggle for survival. This stage was inevitable, as the Turkish collaborationists and the so-called ‘fathers’ of the Third Republic are gradually discovering the harsh and rapidly changing world in which none of them have a place (as well as their masters from USAID and from other similar offices that long protected them). Hence the rat race, where each creature tries to either escape or shift responsibility onto another. So, Pashinyan organises the leak of documents that indicate that Kocharyan was ready to hand over Meghri to Azerbaijan. The collaborationist is primitive and banal. He creates a political alibi for himself, which should explain to Armenians worldwide that it was not him, who started the process of surrendering the Armenian territories and that he allegedly had no choice from the start. Therefore, he will have to surrender Syunik, since Kocharyan promised to surrender Meghri at the time. In turn, the great ‘strategist and sparapet’ Kocharyan, who built the Northern Avenue in Yerevan, held an entire press conference under the implied title ‘I was not going to give up anything’. So, let us fix it – the Turkish commandant Pashinyan and the ‘oppositionist’ Kocharyan are simply creating alibis for themselves. None of them care about Artsakh, Syunik, or Spyurk.
Kocharyan‘s absurd exculpatory theses and toothless logic of thinking allow us to once again draw a clear conclusion – the Turkish commandant can continue to sleep peacefully. We imagine Pashinyan watching this press conference and saying to himself with a smile: ‘not an opposition, but a dream, we need to strengthen it’. If we omit all the populist nonsense about the ‘treacherous Americans’ who ‘lied’ about everything, then, in the bottom line, Kocharyan did the following. Firstly, he chose the role of a self-justifying loser that only strengthened the position of the Turkish commandant regarding the inevitability of the surrender of Artsakh (after all, it had already been allegedly surrendered) and the opening of a corridor which would connect the two strategic parts of the Turkish world (which Kocharyan was also ready to give up). Secondly, Kocharyan once again confirmed that he was not going to abandon the policy of legitimising the Turkish collaborationists. His ‘Armenia’ faction will continue to sit in Pashinyan’s national assembly, pretending to be an ‘opposition’ that promises only one thing – to keep promising. Moreover, they will certainly take part in the next elections announced by Pashinyan. Thus, Kocharyan gives the Turkish commandant a clear signal that he is ready to further help in his re-election and legitimisation.
Why was Artsakh not recognised by Armenia, why was the ‘Miatsum’ strategy (unification of Armenia and Artsakh) annulled; why did official Yerevan not conclude at least a strategic agreement with Artsakh, which would have set out clear guarantees of Artsakh’s security and Armenia’s red lines in the negotiation process; why the Armenian citizens residing outside the country were banned from voting in the presidential elections; why the population of Artsakh did not grow, but decreased (after all, demography is a key factor in national security); why did the president of a poor country in a state of war become one of the most successful businessmen in the post-Soviet space; why did his ‘Armenia’ faction sit in the Nikol Pashinyan national assembly (with zero legislative influence), legitimising the Turkish colonial regime (by their mere presence)? No one cared about these questions. It is understandable – it is not what we are here for. As for the misguided supporters of Kocharyan (not those who are ‘supporters’ on the payroll), we would like to ask only one thing: are you ready to trust a person who at his best is capable only of organising press conferences?
Another ‘strategist’, ‘grey cardinal’ and ‘kitchen Machiavelli’ Mikael Minasyan (Serzh Sargsyan’s son-in-law) promotes through his controlled media resources a similar thesis – the former President Armen Sarkissian is to blame for everything. We have written a lot about Sarkissian, especially in view of his silence and inaction amid the deadly threats to Armenia and the Armenian people. Armenian Republic adheres to the principle of objectivity and can afford to deservedly criticise Armen Sarkissian and other politicians, but narcissists-adventurers like Minasyan are strictly prohibited from doing so. Why? Throughout the entire period of the rule of his father-in-law in 2008-2018, Minasyan wielded unlimited power, having at hand all the necessary political tools to strengthen the country. However, instead of playing the role of a statesman and an architect of the deep Armenian state, he chose the role of a schemer and manipulator.
As a result, he outplayed himself, becoming not the ruler of Armenia, but a Sochi-based kitchen blogger. Minasyan created the image of ‘oppositionist Pashinyan’ from scratch and dragged him into the National Assembly, while his pocket information channels actively promoted the Turkish-Azerbaijani coup in 2018. Minasyan’s pocket judge, Hrayr Tovmasyan, sitting on his and his father-in-law’s lap, wrote the parliamentary Constitution, which eventually gave Pashinyan absolute power. And this is far from complete list of the ‘exploits’ of the ‘kitchen Machiavelli’. Many people with great resources that have gathered around Minasyan (for example, Artur Janibekyan) have a chance to become part of the national aristocracy. To do this, they need to take a deeper look at the ongoing processes and draw the right conclusions. Everyone will have to make a choice on what is more important – the personal (connections, money) or the national (Armenia and the Armenianness).
Armen Sarkissian was dragged into this swamp, with promises of change and extensive authority for productive activity in the international arena. Why he believed in the sincerity of Serzh Sargsyan’s intentions is another question, but politics is the art of the possible and one cannot blame Armen Sarkissian for wanting to try to make the country stronger. But in fact, Armen Sarkissian was a shoemaker without boots. The President is the Head of State. It sounds proud and solid. But this head of state had no real authority. He was not the Supreme Commander, could not dissolve the government and the national assembly, could not nominate his own candidates. The president is just a notary who did not even have the right for an absolute veto over certain political decisions or bills. Armen Sarkissian continued to hold this position, trying to make the most of his personal international ties for the country. He opened Armenia to Saudi Arabia, expanded ties with Qatar, the Emirates, Singapore, and a number of European countries, trying to adequately represent the country on international platforms and attract investments. During the Turkish-Azerbaijani aggression in 2020, when Ankara and Baku sought to give the war a religious tint (attempting to portray the aggression as liberation of Muslim land from Armenian Christian occupation), Armen Sarkissian visited Jordan, where he was received at the highest level by King Abdullah II whose Hashemite dynasty traces its ancestry to Hashem – the great-grandfather of Prophet Muhammad. Sarkissian’s meeting with Abdullah destroyed the strategic line of the Turks and Azerbaijanis, demonstrating that Armenians and Islam had no problems and conflicts.
Armen Sarkissian tacitly endured criticism and attacks from all the inhabitants of the political swamp of the Third Republic, expecting that Pashinyan would realise the importance of changing the Constitution and carrying out systemic reforms in the country. One can feel about Sarkissian however one wishes, but he tried to do something, because leaving is the simplest and easiest way. He resigned when he finally realised that he could not change anything. The way he left, his subsequent silence and passivity, predictably turned him into an easy target that the inhabitants of the swamp want to turn into a scapegoat. They want to blame everything on him, from the surrender of Artsakh to the imminent surrender of Syunik. It is no accident that for six years he has consistently been portrayed as a British Mason close to the royal family and the British Petroleum oil company that are perceived as secret patrons of Turkey, Azerbaijan and the Turkish world. What else is left for them to do? They need to save their own skin and, if possible, neutralise Sarkissian – one of the potential builders of the national aristocracy, which will first thing begin draining the rotten swamp.
