The "Fact" daily writes:
In parliament, Pashinyan's latest "ignition" has a number of reasons and contexts that ignore it is hardly true.
First of all, we will record that Pashinyan's disgraceful remarks from the NA tribune (plastered on the wall, etc.), and most described as the perpetrator of such expressions. Regardless of whom, whoever is about the country's former leaders is talking about statesmen who have works for the country and the people. After all, let's repeat, we are talking about the former presidents of our country, and it is said that everything is said. Of course, they need to criticize, to raise the mistakes and shortcomings they had.
However, the problem is at what level, what Lexicon, with what vocabulary and tone.
Moreover, who is talking about them? Nikol Pashinyan, who has benefited from the country for at least one percent of the three presidents in this 7 years, has been created as much as possible, and the country and the people have brought continued disasters, losses and defeats.
It is quite natural that in response, official representatives of the three former presidents of the Republic of Armenia responded once again to Pashinyan's "debate" exclamations, to put it mildly, with contempt and ridiculous reviews.
Second, although there are many conversations that Pashinyan fell into hysteria, he was once again standing out, but let's not forget that his manifestations took place when answering his teammate's question. In other words, the issue was not a surprise, he was prepared in advance to the issue (naturally also answered).
Let us suggest that Pashinyan's "homework" was. Perhaps such behavior was meant when he said confidently that he would "destroy" the three presidents during debate.
Naturally, with populism, manipules, screams, absence of arguments, few people can compete with him.
Third. And what was the original problem or motive of that outbreak? There are many versions and options here, including in terms of the reasons for the parliament, starting with internal problems, ending.
If a brief, one of the main reasons is that Pashinyan sees that despite his efforts to make Armenia even more humiliating, Aliyev is not going to sign a "peace" paper. In addition, not only a "situation has changed" in the world (it has been changed for several months), but also the channels of this change slowly, but a steady-closer approach to our region.
The "historical moment" is also approaching Pashinyan, the time is time to answer. Can you imagine what it is for a figure or person, whose credit is the X degree of Irresnament when X seeks infinity?
From here, it can be assumed that Pashinyan wants to hide the main problem, in this case, the problems in this case. And what are these problems? Let's mention some.
First. It has been announced that the "Peace Agreement" is fully agreed, and Pashinyan announces "Non Stop" whether it is ready to sign it.
However, Pashinyan and his CPness categorically refuse to publish, present the content of the document that have agreed with their enemy with the people. Second. Pashinyan and the cards continue to declare that "agreement" are exclusively mutual concessions.
Meanwhile, experts say that the information about this "Agreement" notes exclusively about unilateral concessions.
Pashinyan and the CPF tremor the words of the words, as if they are talking about what exclamations and vocations say, but they do not answer that simple question.
If there were such "concessions", then Pashinyan and the CP were just announced it. If at least a half a millimeter were like a half-millimeter, all government preaching facilities would be hardened by the public's ears, the more they would talk about Ornibu.
Fourth. Pashinyan stated from the NA tribune that the position of him and his government is that "the Karabakh movement should not continue."
First of all, this statement is built on the wrong perception itself. Artsakh (Karabakh) movement is a historical and political reality. The movement started in 1988. On February 20, and with the declarations of the RA and NKR independence, the formation of independence referendums and statehood, reached its logical resolution.
Pashinyan and his group were late for 34 years. But it is also a very dangerous statement. The Republic of Armenia, the restoration of the independent statehood of the Republic of Armenia is a direct political consequence of the Artsakh movement (can be said, historical and political).
Now, if the position of the Armenian leader states that he and its government will not continue the Artsakh movement, it means that it will not continue the existence of Armenia's independent statehood.
And by the way, gradually more public representatives expresses such impressions that Pashinyan and his CP are pursuing it.
It is not a special news for those present in the NA sitting hall, including the clients, including Artsakh that Artsakh has recognized Azerbaijani, as it is not the evil that he displays especially in Artsakh's Armenians.
Therefore, it remains to assume that the above-mentioned statement was a unique "petition" to Aliyev, a piece of paper in which a small capital letter was written in a small capital. And which, as it seems like Pashinyan, will become his political "salvation", his head, the stone, what will be a ring for Armenia and the Armenians.
Armen Hakobyan
