Nikol Pashinyan, who is the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Armenia, at least in a war situation, is trying to blame the defeat of his army on the leadership of the high-ranking military, the Defense Ministry, and the General Staff.
In the NA investigative committee investigating the circumstances of the 44-day war, he says that there were commanders who ordered the troops to retreat, as a result of which we lost territory, there were commanders who spread panic among the troops, the leadership of the Defense Forces and the commanders of the Armed Forces misrepresented him and inaccurately presented the situation on the front. And he is flawless, he did everything for the army and victory. He gave whatever the army needed, whatever they wanted, and bought everything from weapons to household goods. What is he guilty of? that the formation of the army led the army to defeat and put both itself and the country in a bad situation. Pashinyan speaks as if he wants to say: if I didn’t want Armenia to win the war, I would still negotiate from the position of the winner.
Logically, everything seems right. Only, if we proceed according to Pashinyan’s logic, then the same Ministry of Defense and General Staff can present their excuses. For example, they can say that we ordered the commanders of defense regions and military units not to retreat, on the contrary, we set the task of capturing new territories, and they reported to us that everything is very good on the front, we are attacking, the enemy is retreating in panic, we we win Well, we too, sitting in the Ministry of Defense and the General Assembly, believed in those reports and forwarded them above. What is our fault that they gave us wrong information from the front, we performed our duties flawlessly, the middle-ranking soldiers are to blame.
The middle-ranking military personnel can also find their own excuses for their failures and the retreat and defeat of the troops, and so continue to reduce the responsibility to the squad commanders and rank-and-file soldiers, who did not show the necessary self-sacrifice and in many cases retreated to save their lives, instead of covering the barrel of the enemy’s machine gun with their chests. or failed to shoot down a drone with a machine gun, and many were treacherously killed in order to avoid responsibility in the future.
Only, apart from Pashinyan, no one will be able to speak in that committee and present his truth. Not because they won’t be called, but because nobody is interested. In reality, these excuses have no value when there is no responsibility. If that defeat is to blame and responsible, it is first of all the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and then others, including the senior staff. Pashinyan was the head of the country for almost two and a half years before the start of the war, and he himself appointed or at least had the right to change those people, the head of the Ministry of Defense, the head of the General Staff and other high-ranking military personnel. If he didn’t change it, it means he considered them competent.
If we are to be guided by Pashinyan’s logic, in 1940, French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud should have declared that he was not responsible for France’s defeat, but Defense Minister Edouard Daladier, especially since Daladier held the position of Prime Minister before him. But Reynaud not only did not give up responsibility, but seeing that France was losing, he submitted his resignation, but continued to support Charles de Gaulle in the struggle for the liberation of France. In general, the leader of any defeated country can shift the responsibility to whoever he wants, exonerating himself from it. For example, the leader of Nazi Germany, Adolf Hitler, could have declared instead of committing suicide: “What is my fault for the defeat, if Field Marshal Paulus of my army was surrounded and surrendered?”
It’s just that it’s hard to remember a case when the commanders of the armies of the defeated countries, instead of taking responsibility for the defeat, continued to cling to power and, contrary to all norms of political responsibility and human morality, shamelessly started blaming everyone, trying to justify themselves. Pashinyan would not be Pashinyan if he did not justify himself, but even made himself a hero. He behaves in the commission session as though we lost Artsakh as a result of the defeat, but we kept Meghri instead, and that is already a big victory. Pashinyan says that in 1999, Robert Kocharyan negotiated the option of handing over Meghri and receiving Artsakh in return. And he did the exact opposite: he handed over Artsakh and kept Meghri. What is more important for Armenia now: Meghri or Artsakh? If honey so he has done a bigger job for Armenia than Kocharyan. It doesn’t matter that Kocharyan handed over Meghri or Artsakh, the important thing is that Vagharshak Harutyunyan said something like that, being Kocharyan’s opponent. It is true that Azerbaijan occupied territories from Armenia, but it was done to provoke a change of power in Armenia.
And since he managed to keep the power, it means that the enemy’s plans have failed. What is more important, that Armenia has lost territories, or that the hostile plans to provoke a change of power in Armenia have failed? Of course, the failure of the change of power is more important, at least for him. What is the benefit to him from Black Lake or the territories of Nerkin Hand and Khoznavar, but staying in power in Yerevan is a daily income?
Pashinyan can say whatever comes to his mind as long as he has power, when he loses power, other people will speak for him and reveal the truth. Although revealing the truth and condemning it will painfully not restore the losses of Armenia and the Armenian people, neither human nor territorial. Although there is not much to reveal. it is clear to everyone that in 2020, Armenia lost the war, and at that time the weak, greedy and lying Nikol Pashinyan took the position of supreme commander in Armenia.
Avetis Babajanyan