"In my opinion, the assessment that Nikol Pashinyan made a bet on the democrats and now remains empty-handed is rather superficial", responding to the discouraging comments of various political scientists.notespolitical commentator Hakob Badalyan.
According to him, perhaps from the point of view of internal political "circulation" the propaganda effect is being calculated, I cannot say, but in terms of real, deep political calculation, in my opinion, the assessment is on the surface.
"Deep down, the picture is different, one of the proofs of which is, for example, the fact that Pashinyan participated in the summit of the CIS countries and Putin's birthday in Moscow in early October, then BRICS+, and in general, he significantly changed his rhetoric towards Russia since August.
And one more key thing that happened back in July, Pashinyan refused to meet with Aliyev at the initiative of the British Prime Minister. I'm not even talking about the fact that for a long time he tried to pursue a policy of restoring relations with Hungary.
I always emphasize that the issues of the competence and content of this policy are naturally open, for an accurate assessment here we need several "counseling" starting points, which I do not have. But cherishing the "hope" that the departure of the democratic administration destroyed Pashinyan's political security architecture, I think, has little to do with the actual reality.
At all, today any political authority of our caliber in the country has no guarantee in that sense, especially Nikol Pashinyan. But, in matters related to that circumstance, whether the US administration is a Democrat or a Republican is not one of the decisive factors.
Of course, it is a different matter that the traditional Armenian political "thinking" in one way or another relies on external factors and attaches the main hopes to them, regardless of the wording and emphasis. And it is a deep political problem that "sterilizes" political subjectivity in Armenia from the ground up. the potential."
