In Brussels, Nikol Pashinyan initiated the process of a negotiated retreat from the Artsakh issue, talking with Aliyev about anything but Artsakh. This is the same leader who, in August 2018, promised the people behind his back not to sign anything on the Artsakh issue, but who does not even inform the president and foreign minister of his state about what he is negotiating with the enemy.
It turns out that what the authorities, falling into PSYCHOSIS, signed from the word “surrender”, is not even worth a ceasefire agreement, since not a word has been heard on international platforms about periodic provocations against Artsakh, about casualties among the military and especially among the civilian population. At the same time, they are still trying to present the tripartite statement of November 9 as a basis for saving the rest of Artsakh or tens of thousands of servicemen.
The establishment of communication between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan through the territory of Armenia is on the agenda of Brussels, the discussion of the status of Artsakh or the timing of the return of our prisoners is not included in it. This is Pashinyan’s negotiating approach: to conduct them with a downcast head, without dignity, unquestioningly. Whereas the capture over the past year of dozens of military personnel and civilians, as well as the seizure of the territory of Armenia, was already enough not only not to agree to new agreements, but also to freeze the implementation of other points.
Speaking about the three statements signed by Nikol Pashinyan in a trilateral format, one should not forget that all these documents were imposed on us under the threat of war, and, according to the well-known principles of international law, cannot be considered valid. Another issue is that in the conditions of the complete absence of national strategy and professional diplomacy, total state and public provincialism, unfortunately, everything was done to make their implementation irreversible.
Meanwhile, Pashinyan had a number of opportunities to at least partially rid the state of its already catastrophic legacy. At the beginning and during the war, on the day of the signing of the document on November 9, in the following months – an apology to the Armenian people, then resignation and resignation from power under the pretext of his lack of authority to make decisions instead of the President of Artsakh, would have become strong domestic and then international the basis for restoring the shaken role of Artsakh.
Whoever becomes the interim prime minister instead of him, he would initially present the Artsakh issue in a favorable light – until the early elections. Thus, the Armenian people would demonstrate that they do not close the page of the status and self-determination of Artsakh and after the war they take up this matter with renewed vigor. Unfortunately, the Brussels slap in the face announced the start of direct Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations without Stepanakert.
For Nikol Pashinyan, above the Constitution is not only the tripartite statement of November 9, but also the verbal agreement with Ankara, which actually contradicts the preamble of the Basic Law and the Declaration of Independence. Not a single document endangering the sovereignty of Armenia passed through the parliament or the Constitutional Court, which, alas, also became links in the chain of sole government.
Politicians of the old generation remember well the well-known decision of the Supreme Soviet of the Armenian SSR and the regional council of the NKAO of December 1, 1989 on reunification, the decision of the Supreme Soviet of the RA of June 1992 to prohibit the signing of any document fixing Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan, even to the deputies of the first convocation of the Supreme Soviet elected from the territorial districts of Artsakh.
Pashinyan began the opposite policy – the final alienation of Artsakh from Armenia, and is implementing it at a rapid pace.
David Sargsyan, “The Voice of Armenia”