At the initiative of the deputies of the Civil Contract faction, an investigative committee was set up in the National Assembly to study the circumstances of the 44-day war. There is no point in setting up such a commission to study the causes, the course, and the results of the war. Pashinyan and his party have already given all the assessments, and the commission, as it was predicted, will consist exclusively of CC members. The deputy of that faction Arusyak Julhakyan stated yesterday that since the Armenia and I Have Honor alliances refused to participate in the work of that commission, it is more proof that they are “guilty” of losing the war. According to the deputy of the same faction Arpi Davoyan, the opposition is escaping in order not to face the painful reality.
It is possible to say in advance what conclusions that commission will reach. The Armenian army was inferior to the Azeri one in terms of armaments because the “former” had plundered the state and the army, and the current regime had no other choice to avoid the war and to not lose the war since the former regime had made verbal agreements with the Azerbaijani side prior to May of 2018, handing over everything that was handed over as a result of the war, including Shushi and Hadrut (the most vulnerable conclusion from the point of view of the rules of classical logic). Why set up a commission if the results of its work can be published right now? The answer is simple: this “work” is a play organized for purely propaganda purposes.
Propaganda is needed at this time in order to present a favorable image to the public. If the government belonged to the Armenia and I Have Honor alliances, they would replace the aforementioned nonsense with their nonsense. For example, Pashinyan took $5 billion and handed over Artsakh in return. Today, the gullible mass is fed with one tale, tomorrow with another.
I am interested in the moral and psychological side of this problem. On this occasion, I want to present a story without commenting on it yet (due to lack of space). Decades ago, the French philosopher Paul Ricciore was summoned to court to express his expert opinion. The essence of the case was the following. The Minister of Health changed the rules of blood transfusion, expanding the circle of donors. As a result, infected blood was circulated, which led to tragic consequences. The minister was on trial. Ricoeur gave a lecture, which he then wrote in the form of a book. The purpose was that the minister should be held accountable for the consequences of his decision. But it is impossible to prove his guilt.
Read also
Aram Abrahamyan
