Most critics in Yerevan dislike Pashinyan’s speech in Munich

The anniversary of the Khojaly tragedy on the night of February 25-26, 1992, is approaching. Therefore, and more so far because of the dispute in Munich between I. Aliyev and N. Pashinyan, the topic of the Karabakh conflict and the genocide committed by the Armenians against Muslims (Azerbaijanis and Meskhetian Turks in the city of Khojaly) continues to be discussed in two societies.

The Armenian publication “Armenpress” cited an old interview with Nezavisimaya Gazeta at that time by Azerbaijani President Ayaz Mutallibov because Pashinyan spoke in Munich about this interview. Like, Mutallibov recognized the direct participation of Azerbaijanis in the killing of Khojaly.

However, the study of this interview clearly shows that Mutallibov did not say such words.

https://armenpress.am/rus/news/1005249.html?fbclid=IwAR0qRkfDgLf7Zb3HSac2SdYHUOodcUdyE-4CpL18K5MRlp4AD98s99U9cPA

A. Mutallibov said in an interview that the Azerbaijani opposition used the tragedy in Khojaly to come to power. Indeed, after the murder of 613 civilians in Khojaly by the Armenians and military personnel of the Stepanakert Regiment of the Soviet Army, Mutallibov could not remain president, and the Popular Front of Azerbaijan then easily overthrew him. Then, Mutallibov returned to power for a short time and was again overthrown. However, the Popular Front did not kill the Khojaly people - Mutallibov did not say such a thing.

However, in today's tweet, Pashinyan once again shows readers that issue of Nezavisimaya Gazeta. However, this time Pashinyan accused the Russians of a crime against Khojaly. I wrote such a text and soon erased the mention of the Russians. However, in the press, his first tweet was recorded and is now actively quoted.

https://ednews.net/ru/news/politics/417601-pashinyan-soshel-s-uma-obvinil-russkix-v-xodjalinskom-qenocide

In the same interview with Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Mutallibov said that he believed the information about the corridor left by the Armenians for Khojaly residents to leave the encirclement. It is not known whether there was a saving corridor or this was a lie of the Armenians, but the residents of Khojaly did not know about it or at night went to the side where the Armenian militants were ambushed. All civilians were shot in the forest and on the plain in front of Askeran. Khojaly survivors say that they knew nothing about the corridor, and were killed by the Armenians. The testimonies of the Khojaly residents are recorded on video and audio media, and can be used for a thorough investigation, the authors of Azerbaijani publications report.

In Armenia, Pashinyan’s Munich performance is being actively discussed in two ways. Supporters of the prime minister write about Pashinyan’s victory over Azerbaijan, as the prime minister buried Madrid principles harmful to the Armenians in Munich, and immediately set forth his principles, that is, the “Munich principles”.

The Yerevan-based Caucasian Knot blogger openly talks about his pro-Pashinyan political orientation and writes:

- Pashinyan and his government continue to reject the philosophy of the Madrid Principles, which Azerbaijan itself has always rejected de facto, and in support of this, in 2016 launched the Four-Day War. Pashinyan and his government unveiled the red lines, calling them the “Munich Principles,” and really “put in” and put an end to the immorality, called the “Lavrov’s plan,” no matter how many Aliyev and Putin’s regimes tried to “pass” them through the windows to different sites.

The Munich principles as set out by the blogger of “Yerevantsi”:

- Nagorno-Karabakh gained independence in the same way as Azerbaijan.

- Nagorno-Karabakh is a party to the conflict and negotiations, without negotiations with which it is impossible to resolve the conflict.

- There are no territories, there is security, Nagorno-Karabakh cannot cede its security.

- It is impossible to resolve the conflict in one or two actions: in the negotiation process, “micro-revolution”, then “mini-revolution”, then a breakthrough are necessary.

- Any solution to the conflict should be acceptable for the people of Armenia, for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, for the people of Azerbaijan, and Armenia and Karabakh are ready to make serious efforts to find such a solution. Azerbaijan should also show such readiness.

- The Nagorno-Karabakh issue has no military solution. If someone says that the issue has a military solution, then the people of Karabakh will say- it means it has been resolved long ago, “Yerevantsi” listed.

Opponents of Pashinyan in Armenia publish opposing articles in the media supporting Serzh Sargsyan and Robert Kocharian.

“To begin with, its six points resemble only a toast,” David Mkrchyan writes about the “Munich Principles”. - In addition, everyone already understands that he is trying to get out of this shameful situation, trying to grab hold of a straw. The fact that his “principles” are known only to him and no one in the world knows about them was understood even by the most recent “dog.” Moreover, there is no content in these principles. For example, one cannot say that the phrase “it is necessary to work well for the country to develop” is a program of the country's economy. Alternatively, when the Prime Minister notes that “this problem should be solved taking into account the interests of three parties,” this causes a smile from the mediators, since it seems that Pashinyan wants to leave them out of work.

Unfortunately, Pashinyan’s words evoke not only Mamedyarov’s laughter, but also at least a smile in Munich, Moscow, Washington, Paris ... It is already clear to everyone who Pashinyan really is. This is the reality, writes David Mkrtchyan, https://zham.am/.

Political scientist Hrant Melik-Shakhnazaryan believes that after Pashinyan’s speech in Munich, the Armenians on some issues found themselves in a problematic situation. “Nikol Pashinyan has not any information on historical facts in relation to the conflict. When Aliyev spoke about the decisions of the Caucasian Bureau, Pashinyan did not indicate other agreements concluded before that. The arguments about the events in Khojaly were rather weak; that is, the Prime Minister of Armenia was not aware of the details of the conflict history, basic codes ...

Pashinyan did not react in any way to Aliyev’s attempts to present the negotiation process in a pro-Azerbaijani light; for example, he did not oppose the proposal for a phased solution, the return of Azerbaijanis, surrender of territories, etc. It was obvious that official Yerevan did not have clear policy to resolve the conflict. Even the simple question of journalists about what you expect from the international community to resolve the conflict, official Yerevan did not have a clear answer. He tried to answer all questions with just one or two weak arguments, which allowed the enemy to put him in a rather vulnerable position ...

By mentioning Tigran the Great, it will be hard to solve at least some issue. Proceeding from its revolutionary image, it is smearing, avoiding questions, proposing a scenario of micro-revolutions! We saw the answer on the spot: it was a hall laugh and contempt, which was demonstrated by representatives and experts not only from Azerbaijan, but also from other countries ...

I am sure that Pashinyan was prepared for this meeting, but he considered that the scenario proposed by himself would be discussed. He hoped that his micro-revolution would be the focus of attention, and that he would talk about a solution acceptable to the peoples of the three parties, and Aliyev would remain under this “trick”, while Aliyev took the initiative in the discussion from the very beginning. The first word was given to him, from which it can be assumed that work with the moderator was carried out in advance. Pashinyan, seeing that his micro-revolution was of no interest to anyone, was forced to ask himself a question, trying to translate the discussion into the field where he was more prepared, but failed again. However, he reacted quite logically to Aliyev’s appeal to the Armenian people, demonstrating that he was not the leader of the Armenians, but of the Azerbaijanis, and he cares not about the Armenian people, but about those people who are refugees. The script prepared by Pashinyan was so ingenuous and crappy that from the very start no one was interested, the answers turned out to be extremely simple and predictable for the opposite side. On the whole and in general, this discussion can be considered a failure,” said the Armenian political scientist (Voskanapat.info).

Simple Armenians joined Pashinyan’s criticism. A video is actively watched on the network in which a certain Armen Ghazaryan addresses Pashinyan: “Ay freak, when did you drive the Azerbaijanis away, did they ask their opinion?”

https://vimeo.com/392416098?ref=fb-share&1&fbclid=IwAR2WpKFiLvuZBbsuBMdj1KJkCcKlNEYGCKBIWc_RdHMQjr8UiqkqKEcnZTI

Armen Ghazaryan says in absentia with the Prime Minister: "Pashinyan said: how can this be resolved without asking the opinion of the Karabakh population. Did you asked the opinions of the Azerbaijani population of Karabakh? You were the first to shoot at Azerbaijanis and drive them. Have you asked their opinion?"