"Fact" daily writes:
Yesterday morning, for a moment, Nikol Pashinyan wrote a post about the content of the Artsakh issue, a post full of factual and factual falsifications about returning Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan. The negotiation process did not have any other content. Talks about other content were introduced in the Republic of Armenia exclusively to solve internal political problems.
In this context, I made a big mistake. In 2018, when I got acquainted with the contents of the negotiations, I did not admit the above to myself (my patriotism of a well-known model did not allow me to do this) and therefore I did not explain all that to the people," he wrote.
Let's start with the factual, to put it mildly, mistakes made by Pashinyan in this short post. after the cease-fire, but still in 1991, with the mediation of the presidents of Russia and Kazakhstan, and was reflected in the Russian-Kazakh program on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh signed in Zheleznovodsk on September 23. Second, even if we take the activities of the OSCE Minsk Group as a basis, then again, Pashinyan is wrong when he considers the signing of a ceasefire as the start of the negotiation process.
The OSCE Minsk Group was formed on March 24, 1992. Thirdly, the cease-fire officially entered into force on May 12, 1994 is a certain consequence of the negotiation process, and not the start of the "negotiation process", as it is mistakenly believed (or consciously distorts) Nikol Pashinyan, thus misleading others. Fourthly, specifically in 1994. The ceasefire of May 12 was established on the basis of the "Bishkek Protocol" as a result of the negotiations held on May 4-5, with Russia playing a key role as mediator.
Negotiations in which the non-recognized representatives of the NKR signed the ceasefire document. This refers to the factual errors in Pashinyan's post. Let's move on to Pashinyan's blatant lies if (as Pashinyan claims) "after the ceasefire, from the moment of the start, the negotiation process was about returning Nagorno Karabakh to Azerbaijan", then Would the victorious representatives of Artsakh, who faced the Azerbaijani aggression and won, participate in such a "negotiation", would they sign such a document, and, in general, if the content was "returning to Azerbaijan", who or what did they sign the cease-fire document as? NKR representatives.
Mine 1994-2018 to the negotiation process. Pashinyan's lie is so obvious here that it is instantly denied. Firstly, the starting point and non-negotiable approach of the Armenian parties in the settlement of the Artsakh problem was the realization of the right to self-determination of the Artsakh people, in this case, the actual (de facto) right of that right. to fix the realization legally (de jure) in accordance with the norms of international law.
In addition, there could not be any such "content" in the "negotiation process" especially after 1998, the meaning of which is to return Artsakh to Azerbaijan even if the "Madrid principles", which were not so well-worn, were anchored on the negotiation process, until Pashinyan came to power and started in the elevators and secretly through envoys to "negotiate" from his "zero point" - behind the people's backs and behind the people's backs.
Yes, the "Madrid principles" mentioned the handing over of the territories surrounding the former Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan", but first, only those regions, then "the intermediate status of Artsakh, with the provision of guarantees of its security and self-governance, the corridor connecting Artsakh", and most importantly, Armenia "Further definition of the final legal status of Artsakh through a legally binding expression of will", simply put, by referendum pronounce, write) about returning to Azerbaijan."
Not a single piece, let's see. And, yes, if it was as Pashinyan is lying, then why did his beloved "educated and constructive" Aliyev cry in October 2016 (a few months after the April war) or "behind closed doors they force me to recognize the independence of Artsakh").
We will not consider Pashinyan's speech about "exclusively internal politics", because he was one of those who engaged in such speculations during his editorial, parliamentary, and especially prime ministerial activities : Let's leave him in the vortex of his "patriotism model", especially since active users are quite In practice, his "thought" is another reflection of his unforgivable statement that "it would have been the same anyway, but without the victims."
The "mistake" is that he found out in 2018, but he didn't tell, he didn't explain. Well, at least explain to your "comrades" that they were doing photo sessions in Akna, that "Akhdam" ) is my homeland." Why didn't he explain to them? Well, when they directly accused him of coming to power to hand over Artsakh to the Turks, why was he so angry, inflamed, making movements to tear clothes with his heart bandaged hand, saying: "People! I haven't negotiated yet, they are accusing me... people! As soon as I agree on something, I will come and tell you... "Or has the memory of all that been "shaven" with the revolutionary Morus? Yes, but we still exist, we also have a selective "memory" we do not suffer.
Well, why does Pashinyan tell lies that are instantly denied? Actually, everything is very clear. it is propaganda technology. an outright lie is told, with the calculation that it will become a subject of discussion, supporters and opponents of what was said will be formed, circulate it, and it will be discussed as much as possible.
In fact, it works, because we made it a subject of discussion. But on the other hand, ignoring such obvious lies, not addressing them is not the same thing... P.S. - The most important thing. Whatever Pashinyan says now, the indelible and irrefutable fact is that it was Nikol Pashinyan who recognized Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan (October 6, 2022, Prague), and he himself publicly disavowed Artsakh. This is the fact, and in his case, the stigma :
ARMEN HAKOBYAN
