Vardan Oskanyan,

By Anzhela Mnatsakanyan,

Armenia and Azerbaijan are post-Soviet republics in South Caucasus, with a profoundly complicated relationship, which is almost always interpreted as this “conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh,” which has nothing in common with reality.

Let’s briefly talk about Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh), a de facto independent country in the South Caucasus, historically part of Armenia, forcibly attached to Azerbaijan by Joseph Stalin’s one-night decision, and which was never part of independent Azerbaijan. Even more, Artsakh and Azerbaijan became independent according to the same domestic Soviet Law, so the legal bases of the independence of these two republics are equivalent. In 1994, Artsakh, Armenia, and Azerbaijan signed a ceasefire agreement, proving that Artsakh is considered a distinct legal entity.

After the forty-four-day war in 2020, Azerbaijan took control of almost 70% of Artsakh territory, more than Azerbaijan kept claiming since 1994. Nevertheless, you might probably ask, why, after that, is there no peace or even a working ceasefire between Armenia and Azerbaijan?

The answer is more than simple, Azerbaijan wants not only the entire Artsakh but also Armenia and never tried to hide it; the President of Azerbaijan went so far as he claims Armenia’s capital Yerevan, Syunik, and Gegharkunik provinces of Armenia, as “historical lands” of Azerbaijan. To understand how groundless these claims are, it is enough to mention that the capital of Armenia, Yerevan, was founded in 782 BCE. Furthermore, Azerbaijan only appeared on the political map in 1918 as the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan (1918-1920), which was never formally recognized by the international community or the League of Nations.

Azerbaijan made it clear that it has territorial claims over Armenia. Since 2021, it has started to prove it by openly violating Armenia’s sovereign territory almost every month and occupying more than 41 sq. km of Armenia.

However, this never gets enough covering; even when Azerbaijani soldiers were executing unarmed Armenian POWs on cameras and posting it on social media, the international community tended to turn a blind eye to it. Why? Because it was presented that “Armenia is a Russian strategic ally, and supporting Azerbaijan means countering Russia.” However, the picture seems to be different, as relations between Russia and Azerbaijan are way better than those between Armenia and Russia. Let me prove it with facts.

The economic relations between Azerbaijan and Russia are on the rise: Russia remains one of its leading economic partners in Azerbaijan. In 2021, trade turnover between Russia and Azerbaijan was 14%; in 2022, in just seven months additional 7% was added to that very turnover. Russian investment in Azerbaijan reached 4.5 milliard US dollar, which the President of Russia announced himself during the meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, who added that, indeed, the relationship between Russia and Azerbaijan are developing dynamically. On February 22, 2022., just a few hours before the Russian-Ukrainian war, Azerbaijan and Russia signed a joint declaration on bilateral “allied cooperation,” which says that “to ensure security, maintain peace and stability, Russia and Azerbaijan may consider providing each other with military assistance.” One more thing you definitely need to know is that 25.5 percent of the gas resources of Azerbaijan TANAP Shah Deniz-2 field, which aimed to help the EU reduce its dependence on Russia for natural gas, belongs to the Russian Lukoil company.

So, Armenia is all alone against Azerbaijan, which Turkey fully backs, whose politicians are openly threatening Armenia with a new Genocide. Suppose you still wonder why Azerbaijan continues the endless war against Armenia, which caused the death of thousands of Armenians and Azerbaijanis. In that case, you need to know that Azerbaijan is a totalitarian country ruled by a few families, and the most powerful among them is the Aliyev family. The president of Azerbaijan inherited the Presidency from his father, Heydar Aliyev. In 2003, the current president of Azerbaijan announced that he “won” 76.84 percent of votes in the election before voting had even started. Due to changes in the Azerbaijani constitution, in 2017, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev appointed his wife as the first vice president and currently preparing Presidency for his son: Heydar Aliyev Junior. The current regime in Baku needs to distract attention from the fact that the country is turned into a family business, which keeps getting rich, in contrast with the population living in poverty with a grooving unemployment rank. Moreover, the Azerbaijani Government promotes Anti-Armenian sentiment, also known as Armenophobia, making the people believe that Armenia, is the reason for all their problems. From Azerbaijani war crimes against unarmed Armenian POWs, you can conclude that Azerbaijani Government succeeded: Azerbaijani citizens firmly believe that if Armenia and Armenians disappear, they will finally live healthy and wealthy, which has nothing in common with reality.

Why does Aliyev complain about Putin? Andranik Tevanyan Andranik Tevanyan, deputy of the RA NA “Hayastan” faction, writes: When Nikol Pashinyan announced that he would soon sign a document for which he could be considered a traitor and even removed from power, he meant the so-called Washington document on Armenian-Azerbaijani relations.

Recognizing Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan was one of Turkey’s preconditions, and Pashinyan said “yes” to that precondition, because otherwise there would be no Armenian-Turkish contacts. His “yes” took the form of an agreement under the name “Vashingotnyan”. According to the Washington plan, Karabakh was recognized as part of Azerbaijan. Pashinyan officially agreed to this in Prague, in the presence of Aliyev, Michel, and Macron.

Aliyev spoke about it in Astana. Nikol Pashinyan also confirmed Aliyev’s words with his silence. After that, Moscow, based on its interests, was forced to play an open game. Russian President Putin made public the Washington plan. Pashinyan, out of fear of losing power, had to withdraw from Washington (at least it is so at the moment, but what will happen tomorrow is hard to say: Armenia has become a victim of Nikol’s geopolitical adventure).

Aliyev complained about Putin in the meeting with the European official. Aliyev accuses the latter of not allowing the final closure of the Karabakh issue, while Nikol Pashinyan agreed to recognize Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. In Sochi, that issue was “watered down” and Aliyev is nervous. Aliyev complains to the European official that Putin does not allow Nikoli from Gyoza to go on the path of tearing the region away from Russia, and the West does not help him in this matter, and something else hits him from the side. The French senate in turn irritated the corrupt leader of Azerbaijan.

As a result, Aliyev only had to complain. In fact, Armenia and Artsakh still exist despite the first faces of Armenia and Artsakh. Our country still exists, because it derives from the interests of Russia and Iran, as well as due to the fact of deep contradictions in the value system of the West with Turkey and Azerbaijan. It is very painful to record all this, because we are being disgraced all over the world. It is a shame for all of us that the Armenian people are presented to the world with Nikol Pashinyan and Arayik Harutyunyan.

Nikol Pashinyan constantly threatens his team. It threatens that if they think of leaving the government or going against it, they will become homeless, and society will tear them, their children, and their relatives apart. The only way to avoid such a fate is to remain faithful to oneself until the end, to serve unceasingly, to be a participant and accomplice in the crimes one has committed, and, in general, to be united. Nikol Pashinyan preaches to his teammates that as long as they are in power, they have security and well-being, as soon as they are deprived of power, they will be deprived of money, and they will be destroyed and destroyed.

This sermon of Pashinyan works quite well. within the team, they see that everything is allowed and available to them. they receive huge salaries and bonuses, they appoint their friends and relatives to lucrative positions, they win tenders and competitions, they earn a lot of money at the expense of the budget, they travel abroad at the expense of the state, and they live safely and happily. It is true that they constantly feel the disgust and hatred of society towards them, but they do not communicate with society that much, and besides, the hatred and disgust is mutual. On the other hand, they think that they, one way or another, are accomplices of Nikol Pashinyan, being or not being a participant in several new crimes will neither reduce their guilt nor be a mitigating circumstance. Now while they have the chance, 

If Armenia was a democratic country, and the “Civil Agreement” party was not the property of Nikol Pashinyan but belonged equally to the members of that party, we would witness a completely different picture. The members of the party would gather and decide that if Nikol Pashinyan, as the head of the government, has failed, he should be removed from that position and a new prime minister should be elected. In that way, the political responsibility for the overthrow would not be borne by the entire political team, but only by the head of the government with several members of his government. In all democratic societies, the change of the head of the country and the party happens just like that, not that the failed prime minister is elected as the head of the party, only because he has a pathological fear that, despite his blackmail, the team may rebel and turn against him.

Such a thing is impossible in Armenia for one simple reason. The public trust of Nikol Pashinyan’s political team is zero, the society did not vote for these people, they are not holders of power. During the parliamentary elections of 2018, the public knew Nikol Pashinyan and voted for him, and Nikol Pashinyan wrote those whom he considered suitable in the “My step” list and made them MPs. It was almost the same situation during the 2021 parliamentary elections. Nikol Pashinyan wrote whoever he wanted in the list of deputies, and left out whoever he wanted. Only with one difference. In 2018, Nikol Pashinyan had public trust and won the elections with his personal authority, he made up for the lack of public trust during the 2021 elections with election fraud. Its organizer was also Nikol Pashinyan.

If we compare the previous and current authorities, then the previous one was more democratic in its content, if only because during the previous authorities, a significant part of the candidates for the government were people who were able to secure votes for the team with their authority, human and financial resources. Pashinyan specially compiled a list of people who lack public authority and influence, who realize their true value and know that without Pashinyan they represent nothing. For this reason, they serve him unceasingly and devotedly, being participants and responsible for all political and criminal crimes committed by him, without even worrying about the prospect of being held accountable for them.

That is why the rumors that it will be possible to come to an agreement with Pashinyan’s team and nominate a mutually acceptable new candidate for the Prime Minister are completely meaningless. Pashinyan will always manage to keep the faction he created in a state of blackmail and fear, because he clearly knows both their human qualities and their management methods.

Avetis Babajanyan

Ամբողջական հոդվածը կարող եք կարդալ այս հասցեով՝ : https://hraparak-am.translate.goog/post/1f2d77777bb044c1c26fb2ce8d8ed7da?_x_tr_sl=hy&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui,sc

© 2008 – 2021 «Հրապարակ օրաթերթ»

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Artsakh issued a statement.

“One of the necessary and key components of the Azerbaijani-Karabagh conflict settlement is the full format of negotiations, as well as the discussions and meetings taking place within this framework.

In this context, we consider it important to stress that Azerbaijan’s attempts to abolish the status of Artsakh as a party to the conflict, as well as to present the negotiations as a “conversation with Armenians living in Karabagh” and a process within the framework of Azerbaijan’s domestic policy are unacceptable for the Republic of Artsakh.

Armenia’s new Looters
Հայաստանի նոր թալանչիները

With Karabakh’s fate in the balance, Ruben Vardanyan takes office while suggesting a new framework for coexistence: living “next to” Azerbaijanis, but not together.

Lilit Shahverdyan,

Ruben Vardanyan, a Russian-Armenian billionaire businessman and philanthropist, has assumed the position of state minister of the self-proclaimed government of Nagorno-Karabakh, promising to reorganize its administration while boosting the morale of the territory’s Armenian population.

Vardanyan formally took office on November 4, two months after announcing he was renouncing his Russian citizenship and moving to the territory. 

He starts his new role with powers broader than those of his predecessor: He will oversee all de facto ministries and agencies except for the ministries of defense and internal affairs and the National Security Service. The man who held the post until now, Artak Beglaryan, oversaw only four ministries. And new constitutional amendments are in the works that could give Vardanyan even more power. 

It all comes as Armenia and Azerbaijan have said that they intend to sign a peace agreement by the end of the year that could spell the end of Armenian control over the territory.

“My main goal … is to convince people that we are in an extreme situation, which is very dangerous and serious, to do everything possible to consolidate people and make them feel that they are a force capable of bringing about change, and that the people living here have a future, despite all of the challenges we face,” Vardanyan said in a video interview with Russian newspaper Kommersant just after assuming office. “We have to convince a significant number of people not just to stay, but to actively contribute to the development of Artsakh,” he added, using an alternative Armenian name for the territory. 

The negotiations between the Armenian and Azerbaijani governments, with mediation by Russia and the European Union, are going on without the participation of the de facto authorities in Karabakh. According to information that has emerged from the processes, the Russian framework appears to envisage maintaining the status quo temporarily while the European version seems to be oriented toward restoring Azerbaijani control over the territory.

Amid this uncertainty Vardanyan has been promoting a new, if vague, formulation: living “next to” Azerbaijanis, but not “together.” 

He first rolled out the idea in an interview with another Russian publication, RBC, in October, and then expanded on it with Kommersant.

“Learning to apply a model of coexistence with our neighbors is another major task, because the formula that I have suggested, to live next to each other but not together, means that we understand and accept the fact that we are close to people with whom we have a very complicated and tough relationship,” he said. “But we have to find the strength and willpower to learn to build a relationship with our neighbor. … in such a way that he understands that he should be more interested in coexisting rather than attempting to destroy us. And that is a difficult situation.” 

Before moving to Karabakh Vardanyan, whose wealth is estimated at more than $1 billion, had been widely known for his philanthropic efforts in Armenia and Karabakh. He established the IDeA foundation, which carries out development projects and organizes the Aurora Prize humanitarian award, and established an outpost of the United World College, a prestigious prep school, in Dilijan.

His close ties with the Russian elite, including in the past with President Vladimir Putin, have fueled widespread speculation that he had been sent to Karabakh at the Kremlin’s behest to ensure that Russia maintained influence there. Following the 2020 war, Russia deployed a 2,000-strong peacekeeping contingent in Karabakh, but since the invasion of Ukraine the peacekeepers’ ability to fend off Azerbaijani advances has noticeably waned, fueling anti-Russian sentiments. 

But speculation about a Kremlin plot is likely only that, said Tigran Grigoryan, a Karabakh Armenian analyst. “There are rumors in Armenia and Azerbaijan that Vardanyan was sent by Moscow, but those claims are not supported by any factual evidence,” he told the OC Media podcast. Despite some disgruntlement with the peacekeepers’ performance, Karabakh’s leadership has no choice but to maintain ties with Russia, Grigoryan argues.

“There are no actual motives for Russia to send someone to Karabakh as we don’t have any kind of anti-Russian government there. The security situation is completely dependent on Russia, so any government has to cooperate with Russia closely. There’s no need to send someone new to have political influence on the ground,” he said.

For his part, Vardanyan has repeatedly argued that the Russian peacekeeping contingent should be expanded, its term extended, and that it should be given a more detailed mandate. 

Meanwhile, he has been forming a working team that aims to bring together different factions including people close to de facto president Arayik Harutyunyan, members of the Armenian ruling Civil Contract party, and former members of the administration of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. He has suggested that there will be widespread shakeups, and in interviews has said he intends to appoint an entirely new slate of ministers. 

While Vardanyan’s appointment has been seen as mostly positive by Karabakh’s Armenians, his appointment was received far more aggressively in Azerbaijan, where the de facto Karabakh government is seen as illegitimate separatists. Caliber.az, a publication associated with Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Defense, posted a video calling for Vardanyan to be “liquidated.” 

Lilit Shahverdyan is a journalist based in Stepanakert. 

There are ways to sidestep someone’s personal fortifications.

bySteve Calechman

Maybe you’re talking with your spouse. Or friend. Or brother. Or colleague. Whoever it is, you know that no matter how carefully you say something, the words won’t get through. They’re just so damn defensive.

You want to scream stuff like, “It’s not a personal attack!” or “I’m just trying to have a conversation!” Mostly, you want to ask, “Can you just stop being so defensive?”

Here’s the thing: No, they probably can’t. It’s right there in the word. They’re defending. “It implies there’s a threat,” says Ellen Hendriksen, clinical psychologist and author of How to Be Yourself. It could be you, but just as likely your words are triggering something deep-seated.

Once their fears are ignited, all focus is danger related. It’s hard for the defensive person to get out of that mode. And saying something like, “Don’t get so defensive,” is about as effective as saying “Relax” to someone panicking.

So what can you do when talking to someone who always gets defensive? Turn up your empathy and turn down your assumptions, because you’re most likely going into the interaction hot. You’re bracing for that person to feel threatened and that ends up threatening you.

“Then we have two reptilian brains talking to each other,” says Laura Silberstein-Tirch, licensed psychologist and author of How to Be Nice to Yourself. That means both of you are down to three options: fight, flight or freeze. “It’s a limited repertoire.”

You want to open that up. You can open that up. It means going in with a different attitude, almost a blank slate, where what’s happened in the past doesn’t matter, and instead of continuing to pull on a rope, and trying to “win” the discussion, you drop it. As Silberstein-Tirch says.“Our hands are free, and we have the freedom to choose how to respond.”

How To Break Through Someone’s Defenses

There’s no one thing to say to talk to a defensive person, but it’s like any successful communication. Hendriksen says to stay in the first person – “you” ups the threat level – and focus on specific acts rather than making things eternal character traits. Example: “That presentation wasn’t at your usual level” is taken better than “You’re not really good at public speaking, are you?” You can also pepper in ways to make any criticism a show of confidence, with something like, “I’m saying this because I know you can handle it and because you’re really smart.”

“Turn it into faith in them,” Hendriken says.

But nothing is magic. Defensive people can turn the most benign comment into an attack, and there’s also something called sensitization. It’s like when hot coffee burns your tongue. Everything else, no matter how cool, will set it off, says Hendriksen. Your words, regardless of how thoughtful, can do that.

In those times, acknowledge the reality. It could be, “This might not be the right time. When would be better?” Or be even more direct with, “It seems what I’m saying isn’t working. How would you approach this problem?” In either of these scenarios, you’re out of the struggle, and giving responsibility to the other person to provide some insight and help with the solution.

“It allows them to show their cards a little more,” Silberstein-Tirch says.

Hitting Refresh

A common frustration in arguments is that the same issue comes up over and over, particularly with relatives and spouses. One approach is to have a meta-conversation, Silberstein-Tirch says. That is, talk about talking.

Consider saying, “I notice when we talk about your mother, things go off. What can we do about it?” Here, you’re not talking about the issue, but talking about talking about the issue, and that one step removed makes it easier for the other person to engage. Rather than bumping heads, you’re now teaming up on the problem, which in couples therapy is called unified detachment, Hendriksen says.

But what also helps is to come into the conversation clean, like it’s the first time. You stay away from lines like, “I know you’re gonna get defensive,” a preface that has never caused someone to exhale. Instead, you want what Silberstein-Tirch calls “beginner’s brain.”

It means being present for the conversation that’s about to happen. It’s impossible to do this every time, but if you can foresee a difficult interaction, deep breathing can help slow you down. So can noticing three things you see, hear, and feel, in that order. “It grounds you in the here and now,” she says.

It all sounds doable and probably helpful, but also like a bit much, especially for someone else’s triggers. Really, it’s not your problem.

Maybe so, and if you had to run through these options all the time with a person, it would be too much. But if it only happens occasionally with someone you care about or need to keep working with, then it might be more beneficial to swallow some ego and take into account what matters the most in the long term. “It’s the difference between being right or being effective,” Hendriksen says. “Do you choose to be right or the relationship?”

more like this

Source: https://www.fatherly.com/life/how-to-talk-to-someone-who-always-gets-defensive?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pocket_hits&utm_campaign=POCKET_HITS-EN-DAILY-RECS-2022_11_17&sponsored=0&position=5&scheduled_corpus_item_id=15b0b7fb-2e62-4dab-ad48-62755c2d3f09?utm_medium=email&utm_source=pocket_hits&utm_campaign=POCKET_HITS-EN-DAILY-RECS-2022_11_17&sponsored=0