Nikol Pashinyan, who participated in the meeting of EAEU prime ministers in Kyrgyzstan, made a statement in a conversation with journalists that could even be described as sensational. “Some EAEU partners provoked this process by declaring that Armenia is needed by no one and that it is not awaited anywhere. We accepted this not negatively, but positively, and started working because, in reality, the situation is completely different,” the Armenian prime minister said, speaking about the well-known situation that has developed around Armenia.
It is quite clear who the so-called “some EAEU partners” are who, according to Pashinyan, provoked this process. He is referring to Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. It was he who, during one of his interviews, stated: “Who needs Armenia, where should it go?” In fact, Pashinyan is saying that with this statement, he provoked him, and in spite of Lukashenko, he tried to show that Armenia has somewhere to go, that it has an alternative.
There are two significant circumstances here. First, Pashinyan’s statement ostensibly concerns his “sense of pride,” when, out of spite toward Lukashenko, he tries to find an alternative for Armenia. But in a deeper sense, this is nothing more than yet another ploy to evade responsibility. As in the case of any failure or loss, this time too Pashinyan “finds” someone on whom to place the responsibility. In this case, it is Lukashenko, who, in fact, is the one who provoked all this. In other words, if it were not for Lukashenko, everything would be normal, and he himself would not take Armenia to the EU to prove that there is an alternative.
But why is Pashinyan “looking for” or pointing to the provocateur? Because there is no alternative, he has no alternative, he has not found one or is not finding one, and he has no hope either. This is where the sensational aspect of his statement lies. In fact, he is trying to justify himself by saying that he acted involuntarily — he was provoked.
Read also
The whole point is that Lukashenko in fact, “challenged” Pashinyan’s pride, but as a result Armenia is not gaining; it is losing. Although this is merely an excuse of the same kind as the claim that “the former authorities put the war and the loss of Artsakh in Pashinyan’s pocket.”
Hakob BADALYAN
