Petros Ghazaryan, the commentator of the public television company, and the No. 1 propagandist of Nikol Pashinyan’s government is trying in every way to justify that the deputy of the Russian State Duma,
pro-Armenian figure Konstantin Zatulin made an anti-Armenian statement, and in the process insults the journalists of “Hraparak” and “Yerkir Media”, calling them semi-literate. .
In an interview with “Yerkir Media”, Konstantin Zatulin stated the following:
“The question about the possibility of the corridor should be asked to the person who signed the agreement. On the Armenian side, it was Nikol Pashinyan. When he signed that agreement, what was he thinking about, and why are Armenians addressing this question to Russia? It is your prime minister who signed under such a condition. There are different opinions regarding this corridor, that it is necessary for the economic development of the region. This is one story, the other story is that it is necessary for the Turkish expansion to pass through Armenia, through the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan, to the Muslim autonomies within Russia, that is, the geopolitical and military significance of that corridor is emphasized. I have the impression that Russia is not at all the main interest in that corridor. the main stakeholders are Azerbaijan and Turkey. Accordingly, Armenia should express its approach whether it needs it or not. We are not interested in forcing Armenia to open a corridor. The negotiations on this matter, which took place within the framework of the tripartite declaration at the level of deputy prime ministers, were led by Deputy Prime Minister Overchuk from our side, but they faced a number of obstacles, including legal ones. Those negotiations can also continue, we, the Russian side, are not rushing anyone, Azerbaijan is rushing because it wants to twist Armenia’s hands until the effect of Armenia’s defeat in the war passes, but will someone in Armenia be held accountable for that? or not? If Armenians re-elect the current government in 2021, then why do they present their complaints about the corridor to Russia? The corridor was signed by Pashinyan, and if you want him to continue ruling, then what does Russia have to do with it,” said Zatulin.
Petros Ghazaryan, during an interview with Artsvik Minasyan on H1, referring to the topic of banning Zatulin from entering Armenia, said: “Zatulin declares that we signed a corridor in the statement of November 9, and he says: go ask the signatory why he signed, this is Aliyev’s narrative. When Zatulin repeats Aliyev’s thoughts, he is lying, and it is directed against our security, none of you say, Dear Zatulin, maybe that is why your entry was banned?
We contacted Konstantin Zatulin and asked if he said what Petros Ghazaryan attributes to him, and if so, then on what basis did he say it? In response to our question, Zatulin also commented on what he said, stressing that he did not refer to any statement.
“No, I did not announce such a thing. One of the Armenian media asked me why Russia demands Armenia to open a corridor. I told you to clarify everything regarding the issue of the corridor with Nikol Pashinyan, because he takes on himself or does not take some obligations, including those related to the corridor. That’s all I said about it, I didn’t refer to any agreement. Later they started to write that Zatulin attributes an agreement on the corridor to Armenia, while there is no such agreement in the tripartite statement. I didn’t refer to the tripartite statement at all, that’s how the Armenian mass media, which have an interest in justifying the government’s line, interpreted it,” Zatulin said, then continued the thought by clarifying what he meant by “corridor”.
“But I want to draw your attention to the fact that if all that is written in the so-called “Washington Declaration” is confirmed, the word “corridor” is not used there, but there is a clause about a land route that can be to call it a corridor or not to call it. Even when a corridor is provided, one should be very careful about who exercises the jurisdiction, how the inspection is carried out, in whose hands are the customs posts, are there customs posts or not? If there is this point in the “Washington Declaration”, it means that Armenia is conducting discussions on this issue, and Azerbaijan, as you know, uses the expression “Zangezur Corridor” everywhere, moreover, during the tripartite meeting in Sochi, Mr. Aliyev talked about the 5 conditions about which they put forward as basic prerequisites for relations with Armenia, one of them is the “Zangezur Corridor”. There are beautiful words about peace, this and that, but then there is also a word about “Zangezur Corridor”. That’s what Aliyev says, but he said it during a meeting with the participation of the President of Russia and the Prime Minister of Armenia.
As for the motives of Mr. Ghazaryan’s statement, why he thinks that I should have appeared on that list, then it is the conscience of the current government of Armenia. Until now, we have not received any official response from the official structures of Armenia. You probably know that on the day when it became known that my visit to Armenia was undesirable, the Russian Foreign Ministry sent a note of protest to the Russian Embassy in Armenia, which forwarded the note to the Armenian Foreign Ministry regarding me and Margarita Simonyan, and not There is no official response to those notes. As for what Mr. Ghazaryan says, the reasons, the explanations he gives… let’s think together whether those reasons could become an occasion to identify an undesirable person. If the Armenian authorities act like this, then the entire government, both now and when it was in opposition, For the statements they made about Russia, they should not be allowed to visit Russia, if we proceed from such approaches about what is possible and what is not possible. In other words, if the current government of Armenia thinks that if you approach them critically, evaluate in a way that they don’t like, and that is a reason to ban entry, then Armenia is a monarchy, and any criticism of the Armenian government is considered an attack on the monarchy. on. In that case, of course, it turns out that I am guilty, because I disrespected “his majesty” when I called things by their names, and no corridor has anything to do with it, but the treacherous line that the Armenian government is pushing forward has to do with it. when the issue concerns the self-determination of Artsakh and the protection of the Armenians of Artsakh and their rights,” Zatulin told us. if we proceed from such approaches about what is possible and what is not possible. In other words, if the current government of Armenia thinks that if you approach them critically, evaluate in a way that they don’t like, and that is a reason to ban entry, then Armenia is a monarchy, and any criticism of the Armenian government is considered an attack on the monarchy. on. In that case, of course, it turns out that I am guilty, because I disrespected “his majesty” when I called things by their names, and no corridor has anything to do with it, but the treacherous line that the Armenian government is pushing forward has to do with it. when the issue concerns the self-determination of Artsakh and the protection of the Armenians of Artsakh and their rights,” Zatulin told us. if we proceed from such approaches about what is possible and what is not possible. In other words, if the current government of Armenia thinks that if you approach them critically, evaluate in a way that they don’t like, and that is a reason to ban entry, then Armenia is a monarchy, and any criticism of the Armenian government is considered an attack on the monarchy. on. In that case, of course, it turns out that I am guilty, because I disrespected “his majesty” when I called things by their names, and no corridor has anything to do with it, but the treacherous line that the Armenian government is pushing forward has to do with it. when the issue concerns the self-determination of Artsakh and the protection of the Armenians of Artsakh and their rights,” Zatulin told us. that if you approach them critically, evaluate them in a way that they don’t like, and that is a reason to ban entry, then Armenia is a monarchy, and any criticism of the Armenian authorities is considered an attack on the monarch. In that case, of course, it turns out that I am guilty, because I disrespected “his majesty” when I called things by their names, and no corridor has anything to do with it, but the treacherous line that the Armenian government is pushing forward has to do with it. when the issue concerns the self-determination of Artsakh and the protection of the Armenians of Artsakh and their rights,” Zatulin told us. that if you approach them critically, evaluate them in a way that they don’t like, and that is a reason to ban entry, then Armenia is a monarchy, and any criticism of the Armenian authorities is considered an attack on the monarch. In that case, of course, it turns out that I am guilty, because I disrespected “his majesty” when I called things by their names, and no corridor has anything to do with it, but the treacherous line that the Armenian government is pushing forward has to do with it. when the issue concerns the self-determination of Artsakh and the protection of the Armenians of Artsakh and their rights,” Zatulin told us. and any criticism of the Armenian authorities is considered an attack on the monarch. In that case, of course, it turns out that I am guilty, because I disrespected “his majesty” when I called things by their names, and no corridor has anything to do with it, but the treacherous line that the Armenian government is pushing forward has to do with it. when the issue concerns the self-determination of Artsakh and the protection of the Armenians of Artsakh and their rights,” Zatulin told us. and any criticism of the Armenian authorities is considered an attack on the monarch. In that case, of course, it turns out that I am guilty, because I disrespected “his majesty” when I called things by their names, and no corridor has anything to do with it, but the treacherous line that the Armenian government is pushing forward has to do with it. when the issue concerns the self-determination of Artsakh and the protection of the Armenians of Artsakh and their rights,” Zatulin told us.
However, Petros Ghazaryan, who sits in front of Nikol Pashinyan in interviews like a smart student and shakes his head under his statements, while thousands of questions can be asked to Pashinyan and countered his thoughts, blames the journalists for not countering Zatulin. Thus, it is obvious that Petros Ghazaryan is trying to justify the actions of the authorities and attributing anti-Armenian expressions to a pro-Armenian figure, when the latter clarifies his thoughts and says that he did not mean what Petros understood. The question arises: the interests of which country is served by Petros, financed by taxpayers’ taxes? Instead of drawing conclusions and reviewing his behavior, he calls other journalists semi-literate when he has repeatedly demonstrated his literacy level on TV.
Ամբողջական հոդվածը կարող եք կարդալ այս հասցեով՝ : https://hraparak-am.translate.goog/post/8155409bda60168ca4de733fa74af3b2?_x_tr_sl=hy&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=nui,sc
© 2008 – 2021 «Հրապարակ օրաթերթ»