Tweet
WE DON'T HAND OVER OLD FRIENDS
Igor Muradyan
Lragir.am News
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/country23237.html
12:45:26 - 06/09/2011
As the orthodox Dashnaks says, "we don't hand over old friends", and it
totally refers to the ex-security advisor to the president of Armenia
(if I am not mistaken, he was called so), who was mentioned in the
cable of the U.S. Charge d'Affaires Joseph Pennington on March 10,
2010 released by WikiLeaks. A lot is mentioned in this cable but what
interests us is, "Polchief has grown to know Isalgulian quite well
over the last 18 months, and Isagulian does not hesitate to speak
candidly about information unfavorable to his own government. He is
idealistic, pro-American, and with a somewhat romanticized view of
the Armenian nation."
The point is that the ball is scored into two goals and not only the
U.S. embassy tracks what is happening in Armenia but someone is trying
to track what the U.S. embassy is doing. Most importantly, it was clear
that the U.S. embassy faced the problem of analytical and information
reflection of processes and events in Armenia. Some embassy officials
were low-qualified and even half-literate specialists. In Armenia,
there is a "special" opinion on some embassy officials which is
based on certain signs and impressions (unfortunately, first-hand
information is not enough but it is there).
When Joseph Pennington arrives at the Embassy, the work of the embassy
became more creative and meaningful but this information on WikiLeaks
confirmed that the Americans are limited and lack genuine evaluations.
The point is that Isagulyan is referred to as a nationalist, and what
does it mean? It is known that in contacts with the Americans which
was not compulsory, by the way, Isagulyan consistently stated that
"handover" of some part of lowlands of Karabakh is impossible, and
those who make a try will stop living in this world.
What is nationalistic about it? The "handover" of the territories
of the lowlands of Karabakh is related to the perception that for
Armenia it will lead to a national disaster, elimination of the
Armenian habitat, the defense of Armenia will become impossible. Is
it necessary to sell off one's homeland to avoid being tagged
as a nationalist by the Americans? The notions "idealistic" and
"romanticism" are appropriate and reasonable terms and are closely
related to a rational and patriotic policy. I wonder how they could
describe the U.S. political leaders who send off their troops to all
the regions of the world? Maybe "internationalists" or "peacemakers"?
At least, this information makes one happy because the Americans
have set to use the evaluations of not only all the possible
pseudo-liberals, those posturing pro-Americans who have sold off the
homeland long ago, but also the evaluations of such "idealists" and
"romantic-nationalistic" as Garnik Isagulian, who unfortunately was
unable to realize the goal of a certain stage of his brilliant career.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Igor Muradyan
Lragir.am News
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/country23237.html
12:45:26 - 06/09/2011
As the orthodox Dashnaks says, "we don't hand over old friends", and it
totally refers to the ex-security advisor to the president of Armenia
(if I am not mistaken, he was called so), who was mentioned in the
cable of the U.S. Charge d'Affaires Joseph Pennington on March 10,
2010 released by WikiLeaks. A lot is mentioned in this cable but what
interests us is, "Polchief has grown to know Isalgulian quite well
over the last 18 months, and Isagulian does not hesitate to speak
candidly about information unfavorable to his own government. He is
idealistic, pro-American, and with a somewhat romanticized view of
the Armenian nation."
The point is that the ball is scored into two goals and not only the
U.S. embassy tracks what is happening in Armenia but someone is trying
to track what the U.S. embassy is doing. Most importantly, it was clear
that the U.S. embassy faced the problem of analytical and information
reflection of processes and events in Armenia. Some embassy officials
were low-qualified and even half-literate specialists. In Armenia,
there is a "special" opinion on some embassy officials which is
based on certain signs and impressions (unfortunately, first-hand
information is not enough but it is there).
When Joseph Pennington arrives at the Embassy, the work of the embassy
became more creative and meaningful but this information on WikiLeaks
confirmed that the Americans are limited and lack genuine evaluations.
The point is that Isagulyan is referred to as a nationalist, and what
does it mean? It is known that in contacts with the Americans which
was not compulsory, by the way, Isagulyan consistently stated that
"handover" of some part of lowlands of Karabakh is impossible, and
those who make a try will stop living in this world.
What is nationalistic about it? The "handover" of the territories
of the lowlands of Karabakh is related to the perception that for
Armenia it will lead to a national disaster, elimination of the
Armenian habitat, the defense of Armenia will become impossible. Is
it necessary to sell off one's homeland to avoid being tagged
as a nationalist by the Americans? The notions "idealistic" and
"romanticism" are appropriate and reasonable terms and are closely
related to a rational and patriotic policy. I wonder how they could
describe the U.S. political leaders who send off their troops to all
the regions of the world? Maybe "internationalists" or "peacemakers"?
At least, this information makes one happy because the Americans
have set to use the evaluations of not only all the possible
pseudo-liberals, those posturing pro-Americans who have sold off the
homeland long ago, but also the evaluations of such "idealists" and
"romantic-nationalistic" as Garnik Isagulian, who unfortunately was
unable to realize the goal of a certain stage of his brilliant career.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress