Bargaining during the war: what was offered to Pashinyan and what he refused of

Former Armenian ambassador to the Vatican and Portugal, candidate of historical sciences, and, most importantly, the son-in-law of former Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan (he was overthrown as a result of the “color” revolution in 2018, and a criminal case was initiated against him for embezzlement, and property seized, ed .) Mikael Minasyan left in his blog extremely interesting information about the Karabakh war, set out in the form of an appeal to Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who, according to the opposition, “surrendered” Nagorno-Karabakh to the enemy. It turns out that the Kremlin has repeatedly offered Pashinyan its help in resolving this conflict, however, the price was too high:

“I listened to the ravings of this traitorous brat (available in the form of Nikol Pashinyan, ed.), The whole point of his 20-minute speech was that he surrendered his homeland by force, so that the rest of the army would not die.

Let's leave aside his other from beginning to end false statements. Here are the facts that the people do not know about and which you, the traitor Nichol, are still hiding.

You claim that war was inevitable. No! The war began because you did everything to make the negotiations fail and make the enemy's main dream come true: to make the world understandable about your desire to start a war. You said that the negotiations are meaningless, provoking hostilities!

1. On the second day of the war, you were offered to resign in favor of the candidate for the post of prime minister who would have been from your own team. In return, the mediators ensured that the war would end if negotiations resumed. You refused.
2. An hour later, you were offered the following: if you doubt that after your resignation the war will end, then it will end right now. Then you resign and the parties return to negotiations. You gave up on that too.
3. On the fifth day of the war, when a number of strategic and tactical strongholds had already fallen, the mediators proposed to surrender one area around these positions and return to the negotiating table. You refused.
4. On October 20, you agreed to the previous conditions, but it was too late. You were offered to surrender the four districts already out of control, on the borders of which peacekeepers will be deployed, and the Armenians of Artsakh will remain Karvachar and Lachin. You refused.
5. On October 22nd, you agreed to the previous conditions, but it was too late. You were offered to agree to 5 regions in exchange for the deployment of peacekeeping forces along the line, free exit and entry of Azerbaijanis to Shushi. You refused.
6. On October 23rd, you agreed to the previous conditions, but it was too late. An offer was made - 5 regions and Shushi. There was no longer a question of status, and a return to the borders of Artsakh. You refused.
7. On November 7, you agreed to the previous conditions, but it was too late. At that time, two days before the surrender, it was proposed - 5 districts, Shushi, Karvachar and a small part of Lachin. You refused.

As a result, on November 10, like a thief, you signed the shameful document of surrender, thereby betraying the Motherland.

You turned down the opportunity to take back the borders of Karabakh. You gave up the idea of not letting Azerbaijanis back to Artsakh. And in the end he agreed. Agreed to hand over all 7 districts, Hadrut and a significant part of the Martuni district.

I agreed without any status and agreement on the part of Artsakh, without the opportunity to fix it in the future.

He agreed that the Azerbaijanis return to Artsakh and after the “solution” of the Artsakh issue agreed to transfer the sovereignty to Armenia by opening Meghri.

This is the reality. These are indisputable facts. Facts that will haunt you throughout your life. They will haunt your family too. Your teammates. You and your teammates will be nailed to a pillar of shame and ranked among the enemies of the Armenian people.

The time to hold on to power through lies and manipulation is over.

Traitor, leave now, while you can still save something.

Nicol, the longer you stay, the more inglorious your end will be.

And this concerns not only you, but your entire team of traitors".

***

Publicist Alexander Shmelev, commenting on this post, writes:

“Given Minasyan’s connections and knowledge (for example, he was the first to write about the agreement signed by Armenia and Azerbaijan, even before news about him leaked to the media), there are many reasons to believe that this was the case in reality. Moreover, my friends, who maintain some kind of contacts with the "Kremlin", confirm that they have heard about the same from them.

And thus, the initial suspicions are confirmed.

In reality, Pashinyan's Armenia was attacked not from two, but from four sides this fall. Not just Azerbaijan and Turkey, but simultaneously with them - Putin and his entourage, as well as the internal Armenian grouping of Kocharyan-Sargsyan.

And if everything is clear with the latter - what do they care about the lives of people and the statehood of the territories when it comes to their personal power, property and criminal prosecution - then with Putin and Co., I think, everything is more complicated. No, of course, and here we are largely talking about personal sympathies: it is obvious that it was easier for Putin and others like him to deal with Kocharyan-Sargsyan purely at the everyday level: they speak the same language, can always agree on business and corruption schemes, and simply by age and style, they are clearly prettier and more understandable for the current Kremlin. However, I am almost sure that a purely ideological moment is no less important here.

It seems that in recent years, the Kremlin has finally decided on the new state ideology of Russia: "any revolutions are evil, any dictator deserves support, any people who took to the streets and changed the situation in the country" from below "deserve punishment. This punishment may follow immediately - as in Ukraine and Syria, or after a while - as in Georgia and Armenia, but it will certainly be (in which case we will provide it ourselves). "

These are the pictures that are now being promoted on the Kremlin's TG channels, while the majority of Kremlin journalists and bloggers, from Simonyan to unknown trolls, write in a friendly chorus how incompetent Pashinyan is, how he failed everything, passed everything, lost everything.

What conclusions the Armenians themselves will draw from this is their business. Personally, of course, I would advise them not to fall for this layout in any way. Especially when it is more or less clear that this was the original plan of the attackers, it was for this reason that the war continued for so long. But on the other hand, Pashinyan seems to have made many mistakes, regardless of the Putin-Sargsyan propaganda, so let them decide for themselves.

As a citizen of the Russian Federation, in this case, I am interested in the above-described new Russian state ideology.

The fact is that at first glance, it has a healthy grain: even in the case of Georgia, Ukraine and Armenia, Russia created the problems for the peoples who made revolutions by itself, with its own hands, all the same history confirms that revolutions very often led to big problems and big blood, a lot where and a lot when. And on the whole I would be ready to agree that it would be better to do without revolutions, always and everywhere.

The only problem is that, unlike the Kremlin ones, I understand: revolutions are not organized on a call, there are no mysterious puppeteers behind them, this is a spontaneous process. It's just that if the power to the limit blocks all sources of steam release, at some point, discontent will certainly burst out. And anything can be a trigger for this.

Therefore, only the authorities can prevent revolutions, and only if they advance, ahead of the curve, meet the aspirations of the dissatisfied, at the same time providing them with the maximum number of legal opportunities to express discontent: the media, parliaments independent of the executive branch, fair competitive elections that regularly lead to a change of government, severe punishment security officials for exceeding their powers, constant liberalization of legislation and prohibitive measures, real freedom of assembly, etc., etc. And if a revolution occurs somewhere, those who were in power at that time are to blame. It was they who brought the people to this point, they did not take into account public sentiments, it was they who could not leave power voluntarily and in a timely manner. Therefore, they can only punish themselves for what is happening. They themselves are to blame for everything..."