Leggi un articolo interessante, che ha sollevato alcune domande: https://www.azatutyun.am/a/33253879.html "Pashinian da incolpare per la debacle del karabakh, insiste Ter-Petrosian"
La gente sostiene, con vari sciocchi che sostengono che Pashinyan è il salvatore dell’Armenia e sciocchi simili che sostengono di essere una spia turca finanziata da Soros. Chiaramente, non è in errore interamente per la debacle. Discrepanza sul bilancio militare per tutti questi anni, scarsa performance durante la guerra di 4 giorni del 2016 e l’imprefattura generale sembrava essere importanti problemi.
Suppongo che la mia domanda provenga dall’angolazione diplomatica – cioè a che misura il suo rifiuto dei principi di Madrid ha portato alla fine del vecchio, antico bastione armena di Artsakh?
Objectively, to what degree is the end of Artsakh the fault of Pashinyan?
byu/sehnsucht1 inarmenia
di sehnsucht1
1 commento
There was no diplomatic solution to the conflict once the balance of power turned against Armenia. But very few sources will tell you that because it’s convenient for everyone – journalists, analysts, diplomats, foreign countries, adversaries, traitors, disgraced politicians – to ignore the reality of Azeri intentions. It’s so easy to just “both sides” a foreign conflict and quietly side with the stronger power.
This was a military conflict, to that end Pashinyan was the national leader for two years. Ultimately the responsibility falls on him even if we doubt he could have affected the final outcome much. There were some steps he could’ve taken to improve the Armenian position – building defensive lines and going all in on drone warfare, firing the Soviet imbeciles leading the troops, stalling for time in Tavush. He also completely failed the information war. All of these could have been done differently within two years.