Is Putin the author of the November 9 document?

Hraparak report: “Putin is the author of the November 9 document, he is the one to admit it, isn’t he?” This is the primary debate of the Russians, who consider themselves literate and patriotic. It started circulating a year ago and continues to this day. It not only reflects the reality but also seems to be a deadly argument against Russia. But is it really an invulnerable justification? Let’s try to analyze why the Russian President wrote the text. For that, let’s imagine the situation. Artsakh loses Shushi, and it is Stepanakert’s turn. The civilian population has been largely evacuated, and the physically and morally defeated army is no longer able to resist. Especially since the military-political leadership of the country, by and large, does not aspire to it. And the Russian president once again makes a proposal to stop the war, which is accepted by Nikol and Ilham. He could not even meditate but received a request from them to stop the war, it does not matter.

The defeated side, in the person of Nikol, had no other choice, because, according to him, by stopping the war, he saved the lives of 25 thousand soldiers. And the President of Azerbaijan was not against it, realizing that it would be more difficult to continue the war in winter, and his resources, however, are not inexhaustible. It is time to write a ceasefire text. Do you think that the person holding the post of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, as a loser, could have written any text? Of course not, because the losers do not dictate conditions. The only text he could write was a complete capitulation. But since the mediator did not set such a task, no matter how much Ilham wanted, then the text should have been written by either Ilham or Putin. If Ilham had stayed, he would have proposed conditions that would not be absolutely acceptable even for Nikol Pashinyan. So it remains, that the “Russian king” would compile the text, accepting the demands from Ilham, and their rejection or consent from Nicole. Only as a strategic partner of Armenia could it support Nikolin in rejecting some of Ilham’s demands. Of course, this is an assumption, but maybe one day we will know how the text of the statement was developed.

The second debate was Russia’s so-called treacherous behavior towards us and leaving us alone against a hostile tandem. It is Russia, which is Armenia’s strategic partner (or “was”). But we forget, first of all, that from 2018 onwards we are the “people’s government”, and the Russian leadership had to adapt to the changes made in us. Which (the need to adapt) was “served” to him in every possible way. And secondly, it is a country that has the same attitude towards the color revolution as the Spanish bull does with the red rag. Given all this, you wonder why these same people do not show the same attitude towards the behavior of Western countries.

Let us remember that people who believe in Western values ​​(including the author of my lines) were doubly shocked after the disgraceful defeat, and the second reason was the behavior of Western countries both during and after the war. Do you want examples of war behavior? Please, Azerbaijan was not properly condemned for violating one of the three principles of aggression and the Minsk Group – the exclusion of the use of force. First and foremost, NATO member Turkey was not caught handing over the mercenaries to Azerbaijan. Third, when several houses in Ganja were shelled, there was noise, but the atrocities in Azerbaijan, including the use of chemical weapons, did not receive the same treatment. Fourth, when Turkey provided military assistance to Azerbaijan, including staff, again no state tried to stop it, not unlike Russia, we received military assistance.

By Vakhtang Siradeghyan