It was obvious that the representatives, supporters, and propagandists of the current government would curse Serzh Sargsyan after the third president’s exclusive interview with Armnews. But I am not interested in praising or criticizing anyone personally. I simply want to note that some of the former president’s criticism, in my opinion, was adequate.
But there are also issues of principles where I do not agree with Serzh Sargsyan, and there are issues that need further explanation. I am writing about this not to “dig through the past,” but to understand the direction in which our country is supposed to move.
I absolutely disagree with the third president that the essence of the 2018 movement was anti-Karabakh. The movement did not have anything to do with Artsakh. Citizens took to the streets because they were dissatisfied with Serzh Sargsyan’s “third term.” In other words, they did not approve of his desire to maintain power by becoming Prime Minister. They wanted to eliminate corruption and that level of self-will. Those who led the movement also led in accordance with that agenda.
It is another issue entirely that Nikol Pashinyan and the team he led were not able to take the reins of leadership and, in particular, maintain the security of Artsakh and Armenia. But if people do not know how to lead a country, and if they are so limited intellectually that they can’t understand that, it does not mean that those people have bad intentions.
Read also
Regarding Artsakh, it was said during the revolution that if we are able to become a democratic country free of corruption, we will be able to defeat all of our enemies. This theory turned out to be incorrect because Turkey and Azerbaijan defeated us, and neither of those countries are democratic. Their governments are also much more corrupt than any government in Armenia.
Another issue is more important regarding the future: what we conditionally refer to as the “Lavrov plan,” where 5 regions surrounding Artsakh, and later 2, were to be transferred to Azerbaijan, and the former NKAO and Lachin corridor were to remain Armenian with the appropriate international guarantees. In his interview, Serzh Sargsyan said that he wanted to accept this plan, but based on statements made by members of the Republican Party and their leader, it does not seem as though this plan was acceptable to them. On the contrary, even after the revolution, they said that they heroically rejected the plan, citing the President of Belarus.
The reality, most likely, is that the former authorities did not say “no” to the Lavrov plan, but they hoped that there would be some way to avoid giving their final confirmation. Unlike Pashinyan, who believed that he was so brave as to tell the Lavrov plan to “get lost.” I do not wish to reprimand anyone. I want this to be a lesson for all of us.
Aram Abrahamyan
