ArmInfo. If one follows the evolution of Armenia's leaders from Levon Ter-Petrosyan to Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan and, further, to Nikol Pashinyan, one could hardly get rid of the thought that Armenia's next leader will be a pithecanthropus, Levon Zurabyan, Vice-Chairman of the Armenian National Congress (ANC), stated as he commented on Armenian Premier Nikol Pashinyan's participation in the debate over Nagorno-Karabakh at the 59th Munich Security Conference (MSC).
"I was terrified by the debate between Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev at the Munich Conference," he said.
According to him, he had never seen a more miserable person representing the Armenian nation before. "Armenia, introduced to the world as a sorry sight, with lame logic and broken English, could not even cause pity. That sight was an execution of our national dignity and self-respect. Aliyev was poking fun of Armenia and its premier before the entire world. He stated Armenia signed capitulation accepted by both the whole world and the Armenian people, as the one that signed it was re-elected Armenia's premier after the war. And Pashinyan had nothing to say in response. A different could have say something in response. By the way, it was evidence that Pashinyan's re-election only fueled Aliyev's aggression, and I hope some of our light-headed citizens," Mr Zurabyan said.
Pashinyan kept silent when Aliyev accused Armenia of "occupying Azerbaijani territories and violating the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council." Since Nikol Pashinyan views his "glorious" revolution as the start of Armenia's history, he is unaware of the fact that Armenia has never violated nor could it violate U.N. Security Council resolutions, as the demand for "deoccupying the territories" had never been addressed to Armenia. So despite Aliyev's claims, no sanctions can be applied against Armenia. "He is unaware of the fact that Azerbaijan itself would not respect the resolutions by repeatedly committing ceasefire violations and rejecting the proposals for settlement incorporated in the resolutions. And by remaining silent, Pashinyan, in fact, agreed with Aliyev's accusations," Mr Zurabyan said.
He emphasizes the fact that Aliyev claimed "there does not exist a concept named Nagorno-Karabakh." In response, Pashinyan, "in his inarticulate English", tried to explain the concept is contained in the trilateral statement Aliyev signed on November 9, 2020, without stating, however, that "Nagorno-Karabakh is incorporated in all the fundamental international documents, particularly in the U.S. Security Council resolutions Aliyev himself mentioned, as well as in all the OSCE documents."
"Pashinyan remained silent when Aliyev said that he is not going to negotiate with Nagorno-Karabakh as long as Ruben Varsanyan represents it. But all that he should have said is that it is the Artsakh people - not Aliyev - that to decide who should represent them at the negotiations.
"Pashinyan could not offer a single convincing argument to refute Aliyev's lies about the blockade of the Lachin corridor. And Aliyev-cited 'statistical data' should have been refuted by real data, which would have proved that the movement of people and cargoes has been reduced to nothing, interfering with normal life and causing catastrophic economic consequences," Mr Zurabyan said.
He is indignant at the fact the Armenia's premier did not say a single word about the Azerbaijani aggression against Armenia's sovereign territory after November 9, 2020, even as part of his right to respond to Aliyev's false accusations about "Armenian occupation."
"And when Pashinyan tried to respond to one of Aliyev's accusations about the destruction of 64 mosques, he would have done well if he had not. Without refuting the information, he claimed that 1,560 mosques were destroyed in Azerbaijan in the Soviet era and, according to his meager logic, what Armenians did was not that important. Moreover, Pashinyan spent much of his time to say this foolish thing," Mr Zurabyan said.
In short, Pashinyan's speech at the Munich Security Conference revealed the horrible reality - a miserable personification of Armenia's capitulation was resent in Munich. According to Mr Zurabyan, even if Armenia has something it did not lose on the battlefield, it will lose it to its incompetent diplomacy.
"Since Pashinyan is depending the interest of Armenia and Artsakh at his meetings with world officials, speaking the same English and Russian and following his narrow logic, giving Armenia's consent to decisions of crucial importance for our people. Regrettably, most of our people will not know anything about it given Armenia's servile and manipulative information space. I once doubted the description Levon Ter-Petrosyan gave Nikol Pashinyan by calling him 'a nation-destroying scourge'. I think that 'a nation- destroying Papuan' would be a better description for him," Mr Zurabyan said.