Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

Hayastan All-Armenian Fund donations: $ 11 million reportedly disappeared

By

$ 11 million have disappeared which were donated to the Hayastan All-Armenian Fund.

“We have already written that during the war, when Armenians all over the world transferred money to the Hayastan All-Armenian Fund, these funds were subsequently used not purposefully, and in some cases evaporated. We also wrote that in addition to money laundering during the process of purchasing bulletproof vests at inflated prices, $ 11 million simply disappeared,” Deja Vu Telegram channel reported sharing two documents.

The first one indicates a one-time cash withdrawal of EUR 285,143 (as an advance payment), the other shows that the goods were allegedly purchased in the amount of 519,750,000 AMD (over EUR 800,000).

“These documents exist, but the problem is that both during the war and after it, these goods were not delivered, and the cashed amount is in the possession of several people who did not return the fund’s funds to the budget,” the channel added.

According to Dejavu, these transactions were coordinated by four people, MP Hayk Sargsyan, former head of the government staff Eduard Aghajanyan, MP Andranik Kocharyan, and Minister Hakob Arshakyan.

Vazgen Manukyan addressed the deputies of “My Step” faction the pashinyan party

By

“Get out of the faction, act as an independent deputy. Take your personal political responsibility for the sake of the future of our country and people. ”

Dear deputies of “My Step” faction,

I address you as a direct participant in the political processes of the modern history of Armenia and the Armenian people, a figure who stood at the roots of the building of an independent statehood and the victory of the Artsakh liberation war.

The purpose of addressing you is to present the seriousness of the moment, the consequences that can be destructive for our state and people.

The recent war, the disgraceful resolution of which was the tripartite declaration of November 10 and the ongoing processes to this day, are creating a new alarming situation in and around the country. Moreover, we now face the real danger of a significant decline in sovereignty, of becoming a defenseless, tertiary state in the region.

I understand the enthusiasm with which you assumed the responsibility of the government, convinced that under Pashinyan’s leadership you will build a new country where law and justice will prevail, a country that will be modern, developed and powerful, becoming the lifeblood of the pride and dignity of all Armenians.

Unfortunately, the opposite happened.

The reality today is that not only our country, but you, perhaps against your will, are trapped. Due to the circumstances, you are responsible for this terrible reality, a reality that many of you support, but not the direct culprit. They used your sincere motivation and zeal to serve the country to betray you. Nikol Pashinyan is the same, he will leave in one way or another, leaving a mark on our history. Do not take that stain on yourself.

Today’s statement of the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces and the entire command staff is not a statement of political bias, but an alarm that the inviolability, security and territorial integrity of the RA borders are endangered as a result of the direct actions of your political force leader.

Political common sense requires you to take the most responsible step of your life this time, to get rid of that heavy burden by leaving the My Step faction, as it no longer serves the principles and goals for which you joined that team. This is also my appeal to you as a captain. Especially since your role and weight as individuals are subordinated to the power of one person at every opportunity, it is shown that you are nothing without that one person.

Leave the faction, act as an independent deputy. Take personal responsibility for the future of our country and people.

It is possible that you make a decision not under public pressure, but fully aware of the seriousness of the moment.

PS

I am ready to meet with you of any size, to discuss in more depth the current situation and all issues related to the future of Armenia.

Vazgen Manukyan

The Fall of Kars: A Look to the Past

By

By Միքայել Յալանուզյան,

Armenia’s defeat in the 2020 Artsakh War and the loss of land in Artsakh took place exactly 100 years after the Turkish-Armenian War of 1920. Armenian society started drawing parallels between the fortress cities of Kars and Shushi, and between the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in Artsakh and the collusion between Russia and Turkey that led to the sovietization of Armenia at the end of 1920, with their associated territorial concessions. In addition to these parallels, conspiracy theories started circulating around the fall of Shushi, which were surprisingly similar to the legends surrounding the fall of Kars on October 30, 1920. The pain of loss has led people to take a look at the past to find answers to today’s problems.

հայերեն 

Կարսի անկումը. Հայացք անցյալին

The fall of both Kars and Shushi must be looked at in the context of military operations, political events and ongoing Armenian internal divisions, a perspective that is too often missed. Furthermore, public perceptions of the impenetrability of the two fortress-cities had been woven into Armenians’ public consciousness for decades. It is for this reason that allegations of betrayal take root, whether they are confirmed or not.

The reasons for the fall of Shushi have yet to be examined and many issues are not yet resolved. However, the 1920 fall of Kars has been better studied, providing insights (though not a complete picture) about the 100-year-old event. Meanwhile, it is important to note that the public’s perception that events of the past are being repeated today is not correct, and can lead to wrong conclusions. It is likewise dangerous to ignore the events of the past and adopt certain political and geopolitical stereotypes. The best solution is to cover history comprehensively and honestly which, in turn, allows developing an understanding of geopolitical processes, the interests of the region’s countries and possible actions they might take, and personal shortcomings.

Taking into account the similarities being drawn between 1920 and 2020, let us first take a look at the 1920 Turkish-Armenian War in general terms.

The Bolshevik Victory and Geopolitical Changes

When talking about the 1920 Turkish-Armenian War, it is first and foremost necessary to reflect upon several important geopolitical events that were changing the political landscape of our region. The Bolshevik revolution, Russian Civil War and consolidation of power by the communists in Russia sets the context. It is well known that the reigning chaos and anarchy – a result of the 1917 February and October Revolutions – had dismantled the Russian army. At the height of the First World War, Russian soldiers and officers were leaving the Western and Caucasian war fronts and returning to Russia’s heartland, leaving behind their weapons. The Caucasian front, which had reached Trabzon and Yerznka (Erzincan) by 1917, was emptying fast. This was followed by the Ottoman Empire striking back. Within six months, the Turkish army captured Erzurum, Trabzon, Kars, Aleksandrapol (Gyumri) and reached the outskirts of Yerevan, without meeting meaningful resistance. Only with the battles of Sardarapat, Bash Aparan and Karakilise is the Turkish advance halted and the Armenian First Republic established.

In the spring of 1920, the Bolsheviks were able to win the civil war and started to restore the borders of the former Russian Empire. In April of that year, the Red Army entered Azerbaijan. After two years preoccupied with its own affairs, Russia had returned to the Caucasus.

Around the same time, the Kemalist movement formed in Turkey, the main aim of which was to maintain Turkey’s borders; the Ottoman Empire, left defeated after the First World War, was being divided among the Allied nations. This nationalist movement originated in the eastern provinces of Turkey, the region from where the Armenian people were uprooted through genocide.

In April 1920, the Allied Powers signed an agreement in San Remo that included their demands to Turkey. These demands laid the foundation for the Treaty of Sevres, signed several months later. With this treaty, the eastern provinces were to be given to the Armenians. Turkey was not able to reconcile with such a loss of territory and the creation of a Great Armenia. It is not a coincidence that, by April 1920, the 15th Army led by Kazim Karabekir was preparing for war against Armenia.

In the summer of 1920, the geopolitical situation was such that the regional and geopolitical interests of Bolshevik Russia and Turkey were quite aligned. These two countries, which were at war against each other a mere three years earlier, now had a common enemy: the Western Allies, the politics of which were a threat to both of them. Besides this fact, the foundation of Bolshevik ideology was the struggle against imperialism and the liberation of those who had been oppressed and colonized. Kemal was presenting his movement as such, which at that stage fell in line with Bolshevik ideology. Both Russia and Turkey were trying everything to expel Western influence from the region. Hence, they believed that the Treaty of Sevres and the creation of a Great Armenia was a threat to their vital interests.

Reasons for the War and the Defeat

That was the geopolitical situation by the autumn of 1920, when the Turkish-Armenian War broke out. The main accusations as to why Armenia was defeated in this war can be conditionally divided into two main groupings: a) the Armenian army was not ready and not able to protect the country; b) the army fought heroically, however, due to the shortcomings of its political leaders, it was not able to carry out its tasks. The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between: Armenia suffered a heavy defeat in the Turkish-Armenia War due to many military shortcomings, disorganization, as well as the short-sightedness of its political leaders, bad management of the rearguard, maximalism and other reasons.

The First Wave of the Attack

Three months prior to the war, in June 1920, Armenian forces had captured Voghtik (Oltu), which was considered territory belonging to the Armenian state. Its coal mines were of vital importance for Armenia’s economy and infrastructure, which were on the verge of collapse due to being surrounded and lacking energy sources. Afterwards, the Turkish side justified their decision to start a war because of the capture of Voghtik․ Even if Voghtik was not captured, however, the Turks would have attacked Armenia under another pretext. Different sources (including Turkish ones), as well as letters exchanged between Kemal and Karabekir, have shown that the Turkish army had been waiting for an order to attack since April 1920.[1]

The first wave of the Turkish attack started on September 10, 1920, which the Armenian forces were able to hold off. Three days later, however, they were not able to stand the pressure and left Voghtik. It is at this time that the shortcomings of the Armenian army and the rearguard started to become apparent. According to Simon Vratsyan, the Armenians had 2,400 soldiers at Voghtik and Sarikamish, whereas the 15th Turkish Military Brigade had nearly 28,000. “The [Turkish] forces were well fed, had vast amounts of weapons and clothing, which they were receiving from the Italians, the French and the Soviet Russians,” wrote Vratsyan.

This event is important because, for months on end, the Armenian side had been assuring the West that Kemal’s army had barely 10,000 soldiers, was weak and poorly organized. At the end of April 1920, at San Remo, Avetis Aharonyan, who was the head of the Armenian delegation, was telling Lloyd George, Lord Curzon, Marshal Foch and others, “Mustafa Kemal does not have 14,000 soldiers, but far less and most of them are irregular soldiers, farmers, many of them held there by force, all of them poorly dressed and untrained. The data collected by the general staff of our army, which is correct, leaves no room to doubt this.”[2]

Aharonyan also told them that Armenia had almost 25,000 troops. Several months later, the number of the Armenian army was being presented as being much higher. On July 11, during a meeting with Greek President Venizelos, member of the Armenian delegation Colonel Ghorghanyan said that Armenia’s army could reach 40,000.[3]

Meanwhile, Ruben Ter-Minasian, the Minister of Defense of the Republic of Armenia, wrote in his memoirs that in 1919 the Armenian army had around 10,000 soldiers and officers. Another 4,000 soldiers were in reserve military units in different parts of the country.[4] Throughout independence, the undeclared but nonetheless never-ending war with Azerbaijan had caused the Armenian army to be stationed throughout hundreds of kilometers across the state border.

It’s worth noting that Vratsyan observed that, after the war started, Armenia was left completely alone and was not ready to fight. Armenia appealed to the powerful forces of the world, who had until then considered Armenia their junior ally. However, Armenia did not receive any real military or political support from any of them.

The Failed Counterattack and Major Shortcomings

On September 20, the Armenian forces were already retreating from Sarikamish and Kaghzvan (Kağızman in Turkish). Mobilization of men up to the age of 27 began, and a death sentence was imposed for desertion.

On October 14, the Armenian forces launched a counterattack. Governor of Shirak Garo Sassouni writes that the Armenian army was around 12,000 men. Other sources say 8,000. The Armenians did not have a complete picture of the Turkish forces. Sassouni writes that, according to General Movses Silikyan, the Turkish forces were not more than 4,000. Only after the attack did it become clear that the Turks had eminently more forces.

During the attack, the fatal shortcomings of how the Armenian army was managed became apparent. Garo Sassouni writes that several military units started the attack three hours later than planned. As a result, the rest weren’t able to strengthen the positions they had taken and the Turks, regrouping their forces, took back the initiative. Artashes Babalyan, Minister of Social Security, also claims this to be true.

Recruitment for the Armenian army was also not done properly. Those recruited were inexperienced and not used to holding weapons. There were major disagreements among the heads of the military high staff – Generals Silikyan, Hovsepyan and military unit heads, specifically with Sebouh, who was the commander of one of the military fronts of Kars. These shortcomings and disagreements were the reason the counterattack failed. The Armenian side suffered heavy losses without any significant success.

The October 14 counterattack showed the spread of another fatal phenomenon within the Armenian army, which was not listening to orders. Two battalions of the Fifth Brigade left their positions and retreated without being given any orders to do so. Later on, similar incidents took place under the walls of Kars as well. The reason soldiers were not complying with orders was Bolshevik propaganda and general Bolshevik sympathies within the forces. During the May 1920 rebellion, the military units of Kars were actively involved in anti-government activity, and soldiers explained that this was the reason for their retreat during the war. At the beginning of 1921, military unit leader Sebouh noted two reasons for the fall of Kars: Bolshevik propaganda and the inexperience of reservist soldiers. “The last time the Turks attacked, untrained volunteers joined the army from every corner. It was very clear that, when someone does not know how to use a weapon, does not have military training, he will leave and run as soon as he hears the first gunshot. And if he stays, his fate is to be martyred with no impact on the battle…” Sebouh wrote. “The second reason for the failure was the Bolshevik propaganda, which greatly affected the spirit of discipline in the army and disbanded our ranks. The army commanders are at fault for this.”[5]

The Fall of the Fortress-City

It is noteworthy that the other stage of the Turkish-Armenian War, that is the military operations on the Igdir-Surmalu front, was eminently more successful. Dro and the military units of Kuro Tarkhanyan, who had come to aid him, held off the Turkish attacks until the end, retreating only after Kars was captured so as to avoid being surrounded.

On October 25, 1920, after a new attack from the Turkish army, Armenian forces retreated to Kars. The Armenian military command reported to the Prime Minister that the fortress-city could hold off the attack for two to three months. The Armenian military command believed that the Turks would attack Kars directly; however, they unexpectedly took a different approach. Unnoticed by the Armenians, they moved their forces to Nakhichevan, from where they captured Vezi-Kyol through a flank attack. Garo Sassouni states that the Armenian military command “searched” for the enemy for three to four days. Artashes Babalyan writes that the Armenian military command had considered an attack from the eastern flank by the enemy and it had sent unit leader Knazyan with several cavalries on an intelligence mission. Knazyan soon reported that “there is no enemy on the left front and everything is calm.” “Later, it was discovered that Knyaz and his cavalry did not want to take the trouble to reach where they were supposed to go and had returned after only going halfway, saying there was nothing to fear,” wrote Babalyan.[6]

On October 30, by attacking from three different fronts, the Turks took the Radinsky and Lazarevyan forts of Kars, and then the fortress and city. Information about these events is also contradictory. Sassouni writes that the soldiers did not want to fight. Babalyan states the opposite: that the people wanted to fight and sacrifice their lives, however, “their leaders were incompetent and dishonest.”

Within the city, the Turks did not meet any resistance, and a large number of soldiers (according to different sources: 1,500-2,000) were taken prisoner. Those taken prisoner included Armenian Army Generals Pirumyan, Araratyan, Ghazaryan, Colonel Vekilov, as well as Social Security Minister Babalyan.

Heavy Treaties and the Fall of the First Republic

After the fall of Kars, even though the Armenian army was not completely destroyed, and a great part of it had been maintained, it continued to retreat, plagued by low morale. Desertion was taking place on a mass scale. On November 7, Karabekir proposed a ceasefire, which was really more of an ultimatum. The Armenian side was forced to accept the Turkish conditions and left Aleksandrapol. However, soon after, the Turks pushed new conditions, which were that the Armenians had to retreat back to the Surmalu-Araks station-Mt. Aragats-Novo Mikhaylovka-Lorikend border. This was turned down. The attacks continued and, on November 16, the Turks captured Jajur. The Armenian side agreed to a ceasefire and negotiated with the Turks, while at the same time appealing to Moscow for an intervention.

On November 22, 1920, an Armenian delegation headed by Aleksandr Khatisyan went to Alexandrapol to negotiate with the Turks. Ten days later, a heavy peace treaty was signed, according to which Armenia lost nearly 30,000 square kilometres of land (the equivalent of Armenia’s entire current area). Surmalu and Kars would pass to Turkey, and Zangezur and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan. Armenia could not have more than 1,200 soldiers and had to reject the Treaty of Sevres.

***

As can be seen, the wars and political processes of 1920 and 2020 have several similarities, which is natural since the main players in our region have not changed in the past 100 years. The political, economic and military problems, and the competition between the world’s powerful axes have not changed either. This is the most important conclusion which should be constantly examined, understood and taken into consideration.

As to the defeat, the best means to overcome its consequences is to comprehensively examine its causes. The expression “history repeats itself” is not a verdict and is subject to review.

———————————-
[1] Ruben Safrastyan, “Mustafa Kemal: The Battle Against the Republic of Armenia 1919-1920,” Yerevan, 2019.
[2] Avetis Aharonyan, “From Sardarapat to Sevres and Lozanne (A Political Diary),” Boston, 1943, Page 73.
[3] Avetis Aharonyan, “From Sardarapat to Sevres and Lozanne (A Political Diary),” Boston, 1943, Page 87.
[4] Ruben, “Memoirs of an Armenian Revolutionary,” Volume 7, Yerevan, 1990, Pages 335-336.
[5] Sebouh`s reaction on the fall of Kars, “The Last News,” February 8, 1921, No. 2096.
[6] Aratshes Babalyan, “The Fall of Kars,” Hayrenik, 1923, No. 12, Boston.

Source: https://www.evnreport.com/magazine-issues/the-fall-of-kars-a-look-to-the-past

Armenian Police officers join demand for PM and government’s resignation

By

Police officers of Armenia joined the demand for the resignation of the prime minister and government.

“The post-war crisis situation in the country requires an early resolution,” they said in a statement.

“We express our support to the commanding staff of the army and join the statement dictated by concern over the fate of the Motherland. We call on the police officers not to obey the illegal instructions of Nikol Pashinyan and not to use force against the people.

We urge the public not to succumb to provocations and to refrain from any steps aimed at retaining power. The only solution to the current situation in the country is the resignation of the authorities, we call on the current authorities to leave peacefully, without shocks, refraining from destabilizing the situation in the country.”

It Took Facebook More Than A Year — And A Whistleblower — To Remove A Troll Farm Connected To Azerbaijan’s Ruling Party

By

Former Facebook data scientist Sophie Zhang said it took the company a year to pursue an investigation into fake accounts and comments in Azerbaijan.

Craig Silverman BuzzFeed News Reporter Ryan Mac,

Weeks after firing an internal whistleblower who called for Facebook to crack down on a massive network of fake activity connected to Azerbaijan’s ruling party, Facebook has removed more than 1,000 accounts and close to 8,000 pages.

Facebook linked the operation to the Youth Union of the governing New Azerbaijani Party. It said the accounts and pages were used to post comments that attacked opposition figures and independent media, and boost the country’s ruling party. This disclosure confirms what Sophie Zhang, a former Facebook data scientist, wrote in an explosive internal memo obtained by BuzzFeed News that said the company was ignoring manipulation of its platforms by political parties and heads of government.

On the day of her departure, she called the fake behavior in Azerbaijan her “greatest unfinished business.”

On the day of her departure, she called the fake behavior in Azerbaijan her “greatest unfinished business,” and criticized Facebook for taking a year to investigate her findings. Last month, Facebook fired Zhang, and she posted the 6,600-word memo on an internal message board shortly before she left.

Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of security policy, said on a press call Thursday that “Facebook identified this network after an internal investigation,” but did not cite Zhang by name.

BuzzFeed News was not able to ask a question on the call, but sent a follow-up email asking why it took the company a year to begin looking into the activity in Azerbaijan identified by Zhang. A spokesperson declined to comment on the record.

Guy Rosen, Facebook’s VP of integrity, previously dismissed Zhang’s work as only being about “fake likes.”

“Like any team in the industry or government, we prioritize stopping the most urgent and harmful threats globally. Fake likes is not one of them,” he said on Twitter.

Gleicher said the close to 8,000 pages used in the operation were set up to look like personal profiles and were used to leave comments.

“This network appeared to engage individuals in Azerbaijan to manage pages with the sole purpose of leaving supportive and critical commentary on pages of international and local media, public figures including opposition, and the ruling party of Azerbaijan, to create a perception of widespread criticism of some views and widespread support of others,” he said.

In her memo, Zhang said the country’s ruling party “utilized thousands of inauthentic assets… to harass the opposition en masse.”

The militaries of Azerbaijan and neighboring Armenia are currently fighting over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, a dispute in which a reported 300 people have been killed.

In a separate announcement, Facebook said it removed 200 Facebook accounts, 55 pages, and 76 Instagram accounts that were part of an operation run by Rally Forge, a US marketing firm, on behalf of Turning Point USA and Inclusive Conservation Group. Turning Point USA is a prominent pro-Trump student group.

The accounts masqueraded as right-wing and, at times, left-wing Americans to comment on news articles and posts on the platform, according to Facebook.

Gleicher said that along with using fake accounts, the operation used accounts “whose names were slight variations of the names of the people behind them and whose sole activity on our platform was associated with this deceptive campaign.” He referred to these as “thinly veiled personas.”

The operation spent close to $1 million on ads, according to Facebook. The takedown came after the Washington Post revealed the fake activity benefitting Turning Point USA. Facebook said it has banned Rally Forge from its platform.

Source: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-azerbaijan-troll-farm

Sarkissian says taking “urgent” steps to reduce tensions

By

President Armen Sarkissian said Thursday, February 25 he is “urgently” taking steps to reduce tensions and find a peaceful solution to the situation in Armenia.

The country is facing a serious political crisis after the top military brass demanded Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s resignation. The PM, however, claims he had already dismissed the chief of the Army General Staff. The parliamentary opposition has already weighed in on the matter, urging against bloodshed and calling for a peaceful transition of power.

“Today, when we haven’t overcome the consequences of the war against Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh – Ed.), when we have thousands of victims and wounded, when we are faced with the most serious regional threats, we, unfortunately, are finding ourselves in an extremely explosive situation, which is fraught with unforeseen consequences for our state and statehood and can lead to irreversible losses,” Sarkissian said.

“The martial law is in force in the country. The external danger is real: a declaration of ceasefire is not a peace treaty. There are many challenges facing Armenia and Artsakh.”

Sarkissian went on to urge restraint and common sense among the public, the authorities, the opposition and law enforcement, and called against hate speech and intolerance.

Armenian PM faces military’s demand to resign, talks of coup

By

By AVET DEMOURIAN,

YEREVAN, Armenia (AP) — Armenia’s prime minister accused top military officers on Thursday of attempting a coup after they demanded he step down, adding fuel to monthslong protests calling for his resignation following the nation’s defeat in a conflict with Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

The demonstrations began immediately after Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan signed a Nov. 10 peace deal that saw Azerbaijan reclaim control over large parts of Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding areas that had been held by Armenian forces for more than a quarter-century.

Those protests have gathered pace this week, and the feud with his top military commanders has weakened Pashinyan’s position. The immediate trigger for the standoff was Pashinyan’s decision to oust the first deputy chief of the military’s General Staff, a group of the armed forces’ top commanders.

In response, the General Staff called for Pashinyan’s resignation — but the prime minister doubled down and dismissed the chief of the General Staff.

He described the military’s statement as a “military coup attempt” and urged troops to only listen to his orders.

He also called on his backers to come to the streets and then later walked among them, using a loudspeaker to rally support. “We need a conversation, not a confrontation,” he said.

Pashinyan denied rumors that he was preparing to flee the country.

Supporters of Pashinyan and the opposition engaged in sporadic scuffles on the streets of Yerevan on Thursday.

Russia’s government voiced concern over the tensions but emphasized that Armenia needs to sort it out itself. “We are calling for calm and believe that the situation should remain in the constitutional filed,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

The crisis has its roots in Armenia’s humiliating defeat in heavy fighting with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh that erupted in late September and lasted 44 days. A Russian-brokered agreement ended the conflict in which the Azerbaijani army routed Armenian forces — but only after more than 6,000 people died on both sides.

Pashinyan has defended the peace deal as a painful but necessary move to prevent Azerbaijan from overrunning the entire Nagorno-Karabakh region, which lies within Azerbaijan but was under the control of ethnic Armenian forces backed by Armenia since a separatist war there ended in 1994.

Opposition groups have dismissed that argument. On Thursday, opposition demonstrators swarmed the streets of the Armenian capital, chanting “Nikol, you traitor!” and “Nikol, resign!” They paralyzed traffic all around Yerevan.

Despite the simmering public anger over the military defeat, Pashinyan has maneuvered to shore up his rule and the protests died down amid the winter’s cold. But the opposition demonstrations resumed with new vigor this week — and then came the spat with top officers.

Pashinyan fired the deputy chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Tiran Khachatryan, earlier this week after he derided the prime minister’s claim that just 10% of Russia-supplied Iskander missiles that Armenia used in the conflict exploded on impact.

The General Staff responded Thursday with a statement demanding Pashinyan’s resignation and warned the government against trying to use force against the opposition demonstrators. Immediately after the statement, Pashinyan dismissed the General Staff chief, Col. Gen. Onik Gasparyan.

____

Associated Press writers Vladimir Isachenkov and Daria Litvinova in Moscow contributed to this report.

Bangin’ Buns – How Armenian Teenagers Landed In L.A.’s Nashville Hot Chicken Scene

By

By Evan J. Lancaster,

Los Angeles was a different place in 2018, and little did L.A. know then, that a group of Armenian teenagers were busy creating the next Nashville hot chicken empire, in an East Hollywood backyard. That empire is quickly growing and is known today as Bangin’ Buns. 

Thanks to clever Fortnite-inspired name alliteration, and a tasty signature Nashville hot chicken recipe, Bangin’ Buns has quietly amassed a cult-like collection of followers, surpassing 120,000 on Instagram. 

Additionally, Bangin’ Buns namesake rests on the incorporation of a Hoagie-style French roll — in place of hamburger bun — on their Nashville hot chicken sandwich, a trait Sam Manvelyan, CFO and co-founder of Bangin’ Buns, believes is a unique intricacy that Bangin’ Buns has originated in the Nashville hot game.

“We put our own twist on your regular chicken sandwich, usually you have it in a burger bun, but we were the first to come up with the hoagie – French roll,” Manvelyan said in an interview with L.A. Weekly.

Now, with two locations, one in North Hollywood and the newest in South L.A., Bangin’ Buns is working to establish their identity as a Nashville hot chicken juggernaut, hungry and willing to take on all contenders — large and small.

In an interview with the L.A. Weekly, Bangin’ Buns CEO and Co-founder, Nick Nshanyan explained L.A.’s famous Howlin’ Rays has become one point of inspiration behind why this group of childhood friends sought to bring better Nashville hot chicken to the peckish hot chicken fiends of Southern California.        

“We went to Howlin’ Rays, and we waited in a two, three hour line, so at the time, Howlin’ Ray’s was the one selling hot chicken, so we thought, “OK, instead of waiting in a two-three hour line — why not make it ourselves?”  said Nshanyan. “From that point we realized that if we come up with a good recipe, there’s a high demand in the market — we could do our own chicken joint.””

Also taking inspiration from Prince’s Original Nashville hot chicken, the founders of Bangin’ Buns recipe features a cayenne pepper base, with garlic, paprika, and can go all the way up the spice ladder up to Carolina Reapers and along with Trinidad Scorpion Peppers.   

“Our recipe, the ingredients we use, is what makes our chicken Bangin chicken, chicken that you can’t get anywhere else.” Nshanyan said. 

Prior to the brick and mortar, the East Hollywood-born Nashville hot chicken concept, grew like a rose in concrete — except the rose was a hot chicken business and the concrete was a parking lot on Lankershim Blvd. and Victory Blvd. in North Hollywood. 

Originally founded in 2018, Nshanyan explained that the Bangin’ Buns concept was a collaborative effort between him and his group of childhood friends, who all grew up on the same street in East Hollywood. 

The tight-knit group wanted to find a way to work together, and as young entrepreneurs — 18 and 19-years-old in 2018, they decided to start a Nashville hot chicken concept under the name, Bangin’ Chicken. 

It was only when the group decided to incorporate the hoagie that made Bangin’ Buns the official name. 

Despite warnings from friends and family, who urged doing business with friends at such a young age could lead to conflicts, the group of East Hollywood entrepreneurs were all in. Diving in without permits or permission, Bangin’ Buns began setting up in a parking lot near the neighborhood they grew up in. 

In the early days, it was not uncommon for the group to face hefty fines, and unwanted attention from the Los Angeles Police Department for operating their food business illegally. 

Still, by continuing to dish out their signature Nashville hot chicken, the soon-to-be Bangin’ Buns concept began to gain attention. 

Despite any concern over legality, the concept began to generate long lines that merged outside of the founder’s original circle of friends and family, reaching the most in-the-know food fanatics who managed to seek out the underground trend, before the Bangin’ Buns brick and mortar concept was established.  

“We would operate from 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.,” Manvelyan said. “We served over 1,000 customers in six hours.”  

In just a few years, it seems Bangin’ Buns has proved its worth to L.A., with aspirations to take on the corporate chicken giants, like Raising Canes, and are even betting on themselves to become the local favorite, in place of landmarks like Howlin’ Rays.

“I see our competition as anyone who serves chicken, whether it be Raising Canes or Chick-Fil-A.  They’re competitors  because they do a great job at marketing and expansion,” Manvelyan explained. “Who says that we can’t beat corporate as well, and have as many locations as corporate — they inspire us to be that big.”

Andrew Sears, Marketing Director for Bangin’ Buns shared the company wide goal of opening six additional stores in 2021.

However, the challenge will be creating consistency, which will help create established roles. In doing so, Sears says this gives the team an ideal environment to institute company wide department leads, in order for the process of each position to be clear across the board — regardless of the number of locations.

While Sears admits this mimics corporate structures, he is confident this will help build the Bangin’ Buns brand identity, while creating safeguards for roles and responsibilities for future growth. 

One might recognize Sears’ point of emphasis in the incorporation of similar processes, after hearing a Chick-Fil-A employee repeat, “My Pleasure,” after a customer says, “Thank You.”

“While we only have two stores, I’m thinking it’s the best opportunity to fix that issue before we start opening up more,” Sears explained. “Because we start to fix these little issues, and stop putting band-aids over them, we’re going to create an environment where it’s like, now we don’t just have the best chicken — we also have the best customer service.” 

Source: https://www.laweekly.com/bangin-buns-how-armenian-teenagers-landed-in-l-a-s-nashville-hot-chicken-scene/

Facebook reportedly silenced an enemy of Turkey to prevent hit on its business

By

Sheryl Sandberg and other top Facebook execs reportedly silenced a Kurdish group at the request of the Turkish government in 2018.

By Alexandra Steigrad,

Sheryl Sandberg and other top Facebook execs silenced a Kurdish group at the request of the Turkish government in a bid to protect its business in 2018, according to a new report.

According to ProPublica, Turkey, which was launching a bloody military offensive against Kurdish minorities in neighboring Syria, demanded that Facebook block posts from the People’s Protection Units, a mostly Kurdish militia group that the Turkish government had targeted.

If Facebook didn’t give in to Turkey’s demands, it faced losing tens of millions of users in the country. On the flip side, silencing the group, known as YPG, would add to the perception that Facebook too often bends to the wishes of authoritarian governments and that it values its business over all else.

In a series of newly disclosed emails from the company’s leadership, ProPublica revealed that there was no hand-wringing over the ethical dilemma. In response to Turkey’s demand that Facebook block YPG’s posts, Sandberg, the social media giant’s No. 2 exec simply wrote: “I am fine with this.”

The terse one-line email reply was not accompanied by any other thoughts.

According to ProPublica, the emails show that deliberations were centered on keeping the platform operational, not on human rights.

“The page caused us a few PR fires in the past,” one Facebook manager warned of the YPG material.

The chairman of Turkey’s telecommunications regulator reminded Facebook “to be cautious about the material being posted, especially photos of wounded people,” wrote Mark Smith, a UK-based policy manager in an email to Joel Kaplan, Facebook’s vice president of global public policy. 

He also added that the government “may ask us to block entire pages and profiles if they become a focal point for sharing illegal content.”

Facebook’s eventual solution was to “geo-block” or selectively bar users in a geographic region from viewing certain content, should the threats from Turkish officials escalate.

Three years later, YPG’s photos and updates about the Turkish military’s brutal attacks on the Kurdish minority in Syria still can’t be viewed by Facebook users inside Turkey, according to the report.

Turkey considers the YPG a terrorist organization, although neither the US nor Facebook do.

“We strive to preserve voice for the greatest number of people,” a Facebook spokesman told The Post. “There are however, times when we restrict content based on local law even if it does not violate our Community Standards. In this case, we made the decision based on our policies concerning government requests to restrict content and our international human rights commitments. We disclose the content we restrict in our twice-yearly Transparency Reports and are evaluated by independent experts on our international human rights commitments every two years.”

Facebook’s regulatory filings suggest that cutting off revenue from Turkey could financially harm the tech giant. Facebook includes revenue from Turkey and Russia in the figure it gives for Europe overall and the company reported a 34 percent increase for the continent in annual revenue per user, according to its 2019 10-K filing.

Katitza Rodriguez, policy director for global privacy at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the potential revenue loss is a big issue for Facebook and others. She said the Turkish government has also managed to force Facebook and other platforms into appointing legal representatives in the country. If tech companies don’t comply, she said, Turkish taxpayers would be prevented from placing ads and making payments to Facebook.

Source: https://nypost.com/2021/02/24/facebook-silenced-kurdish-group-to-stop-hit-on-its-business/?fbclid=IwAR1HW0w60Gh6zlwlcbgJo1ynrO8UOkQhLaOHKg48mjxV-K3qk5Yfq3Uek3s

Members Of Armenian Armed Group Jailed Over 2016 Hostage Crisis

By

YEREVAN — A court in Armenia has issued verdicts against members of an armed group, known as Sasna Tsrer, who seized a police base in the capital in 2016 and took hostages.

The court on February 24 sentenced seven members of the group to prison terms between six and eight years.

One member, Smbat Barseghian, was found guilty of killing two police officers and sentenced to 25 years.

Charges against Araik Khandoyan were dropped due to his death. Another defendant, Armen Bilian, who was charged with killing a police officer, was acquitted.

Most of the more than two dozen members of Sasna Tsrer, a fringe opposition group composed of a number of prominent Nagorno-Karabakh war veterans, were set free pending the outcome of their ongoing trial after the change of government in Armenia in 2018.

Many of them were released under the personal guarantees of parliament members.

In July 2016, the armed group led by retired army Colonel Varuzhan Avetisian seized a police compound in Yerevan’s Erebuni district and demanded that then-President Serzh Sarkisian free jailed nationalist politician Zhirayr Sefilian and step down.

A two-week standoff with security forces left three police officers dead.

A political party formed around the Sasna Tsrer movement took part in parliamentary elections in December 2018. The party failed to clear the 5 percent threshold to enter the legislature by securing less than 2 percent of the vote.