Or he would talk about Nikol Pashinyan's speech about the army

If we do not take into account the clichés of cheap populism, there are noteworthy points in the speech of the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan on the 32nd anniversary of the creation of the army in the country. We will focus on them in our article. But first, we consider it important to talk about one issue.

Defeated in the First World War, Germany suffered a tragic fate. Although the conditions at that time were not as dramatic as in the Second World War, bans were imposed on the country's armaments. But all this could not prevent the rise of fascism in Germany. In the end, with the acquisition of power by Adolf Hitler, the country began to make invasion plans and quickly realized his wish...

Yes, it is not enough to list the tragedies that the Second World War brought to humanity. Germany was punished for all this. The country was divided into two parts, and heavy conditions were imposed on it. Most importantly, as after the First World War, after the Second World War, Germany was effectively disarmed, restrictions were imposed on the country in its current direction.

Of course, our goal is not to make a comparison between Hitler's Germany and Armenia. We do not compare because Armenia lags behind Germany in terms of the magnitude of the tragedies it has caused and the deprivations it has experienced. That's why we don't need parallels because Armenia itself is not Germany in terms of scale. That is, if the former had the opportunity, he would leave the latter behind in terms of acts of brutality and vandalism. However, it is also possible to say that Armenia "surpassed" Nazi Germany due to the brutality of the Khojaly genocide. *** Algarez, in the current situation, Armenia is losing the war. N. Pashinyan speaks as the leader of the defeated country and talks about reforms in the army. We cannot say that the head of the Armenian government thinks that sins have been forgiven, so to speak, that is, since the then Federal Republic of Germany (the German Democratic Republic was under the patronage of the former USSR - ed.) joined NATO in 1955 and became the patronage of the West. is inspired. However, this man talks as if there was no 44-day war. He forgets the reason for the start of the war. In other words, besides talking about reforms in the army, he states that Armenia has no territorial claims against any country. I wonder if it wasn't Pashinyan who made the statement "Karabakh is Armenia"? Maybe the war started not because of him, but because of someone else's decision? After all, it was the defense minister appointed by Pashinyan who put forward the slogan "new war for new territories"?

Of course, Nicole knows everything well, remembers and says in her speech that she is ready to sign a non-aggression pact with Azerbaijan. In this place, the historic Molotov-Rubbentrop Pact is inevitably remembered. As it is known, in 1939, this document signed by the heads of the foreign policy departments of Germany and the USSR and went down in history with their surnames stipulated that the states should not attack each other. But the existing pact did not prevent the former from attacking the latter in June 1941. Germany broke the agreement, the Molotov-Rubbentrop Pact became a blank piece of paper. At that time, those in the Kremlin were mistaken in believing Hitler. They did not take into account that the attack of Germany on the USSR, which quickly armed itself and brought Europe to its knees, was inevitable. At least they didn't learn from the First World War.

***

Now Azerbaijan has seen two Karabakh wars. Moreover, Armenia did not experience the fate that Germany faced after the Second World War. At that time, Soviet troops planted a flag on the Reichstag building in Berlin. The flag of Azerbaijan was not flown in Yerevan. ... The prime minister of Armenia, which is arming itself, says that his country has no intention of attacking neighboring countries. Of course, Pashinyan is right in the sense that Armenia intends to attack neither Turkey nor Iran.

We are right not to believe that Azerbaijan is not the target of Nikol's militaristic policy. After all, Yerevan was actually occupied until September of last year. Who can guarantee that he does not currently have such an intention? How correct is it to trust the words of the person who made the statement "Karabakh is Armenia" after coming to power? There is another side of the matter. We are talking about a game created in the form of "Security of Armenia".

***

Yes, Pashinyan states in his speech that the previous ideas about Armenia's security systems and their functioning, which found a place in the Armenian society, were a cruel joke towards the country. There is no doubt that he emphasizes the 44-day war. That is, it hints at the creation of a myth about the Armenian army before that war. Let's pay attention at what level this myth was invented. Of course, in the context of the occupation of Azerbaijani lands. It was reported that the fighting and invincible Armenian army won the war. Pashinyan believed in the myth and paralyzed the negotiation process...

Of course, the success of the First Karabakh War was not the Armenian army. As they say, the dog slept in the shadow of the cart, thinking it was his own shadow. But the 44-day war destroyed the myth. Now the prime minister of Armenia considers the issue as a crack in the security system of his country. In any case, if Yerevan had not been invaded in nearly thirty years, neither a soap bubble-like myth would have arisen, nor the current security challenges would have been relevant. The fact is that Armenia is a country that chose occupation in terms of its modern statehood and existence.

As far as Nikol Pashinyan is concerned, he takes armament as a basis and links it to the security factor, when he should have taken a different path to overcome the heavy blow inflicted on his country by the occupying past. He does not take into account that the biggest threat to security in the South Caucasus is Armenia itself. The whole world knows this. Some poles just raise the issue directly, while others use Yerevan for the sake of their regional "plans". That is, the logic of Nicole's "cruel joke" is still valid today. Indeed, Armenia not only takes seriously the jokes of those who provoked it to a new war against Azerbaijan, but at the same time, it falls into a deep illusion.

Pashinyan's "cruel joke" logic is valid because he proudly says that his country is on the path to acquiring new, modern weapons and equipment, and adds that the government has signed several billion dollar contracts in the current direction. This is similar to the fact that Hitler, who had just come to power, expelled the defeated Germany in the First World War from the United Nations and rapidly armed it.

Azerbaijan, which has faced occupation for nearly thirty years, certainly cannot and does not remain a spectator to the arming of Armenia. That is, in the current case, Nikol said, "it is the sovereign right of every country to reform the army, to have a strong and combat-ready army, and we will continue to follow this path." "A strong and combat-ready army is one of the most important factors that ensure the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of the Republic of Armenia," his speech cannot be received sincerely.

Sincere acceptance of the views of the Armenian Prime Minister is also impossible because he stands on two main factors in the context of ensuring the security of his country. First, foreign relations, and secondly, the legitimacy of the policy conducted in terms of international law. According to him, at the same time, legitimacy should be the most important factor in ensuring Armenia's external security. What does it mean? Of course, adventure and distortion of realities, as well as not taking into account the rightful position of Azerbaijan.

It is true that, in a certain sense, Pashinyan can be considered constructive when he states the importance of Armenia identifying itself with the territory recognized by the international community. That is, let's assume that this saying is not to make a territorial claim against the neighbors. But we should pay attention to the second side of the issue. Nikol says that the territory of the Armenian SSR, which is the same as the sovereign territory of Armenia, should be accepted and it should become a strategic basis for ensuring the country's external security. Let's take into account that the person who expressed such an opinion is the leader of the country, which claimed that its border was in the Aghdam region of Azerbaijan for nearly thirty years, and he brings up the issue he spoke about by referring to "a number of aggressive statements from Azerbaijan". I wonder if he realizes that exaggerating the rhetoric of "Azerbaijan's aggression" in the context of armament is associated with the intention of aggression? There is no doubt that after the Prime Minister's words, the belief that Armenia is preparing for rematch will become stronger. Do Pashinyan and his supporters need this?

Let's pay attention, saying that it is the sovereign right of every country to have a strong and ready-to-fight army, the Armenian Prime Minister says that no one can question this right of Armenia: "If someone questions our right, then he questions our right to exist. . In such a case, we will have no choice but to defend our statehood, independence, and territorial integrity in possible and impossible ways."

It is clear that Pashinyan's opinion sounds like a response to what President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev said in an interview to local TV channels on January 10 this year. In such an approach, a similarity can be sought with the expression "new war for new territories" before the 44-day war. That is, it is possible for Azerbaijan to accept the issue in this way. Because it is an occupied country. Therefore, Pashinyan's "strong and irrevocable guarantees" of non-aggression will be nothing more than empty words.

Armenia's failure to fulfill its obligations as a war loser raises doubts about the sincerity of Nikol's views. On the other hand, Pashinyan proposes the withdrawal of troops from their positions and again tries to rely on the Alma-Ata Declaration of 1991. He says that the current borders of Azerbaijan and Armenia have become state borders in accordance with the document in question, and an agreement was reached on the mutual recognition of territorial integrity on October 6, 2022 in Prague. We are talking about the agreement between the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev, the President of the Council of the European Union Charles Michel and Pashinyan.

However, it is known that Armenian military personnel remained in the territory of Azerbaijan, that is, in Karabakh, until approximately one year after that agreement, and they left the territory only after local anti-terrorist measures. So, until now, Armenia has only understood the language of Zor. In such a case, Nicol's statement that his country is committed to the peace agenda and that it will not deviate from this agenda does not seem convincing.

Ə.CAHANGİROĞLU

XQ