Tweet
How Come One is So Fearful with Such Powerful Army?
Haikazn Ghahriyan, Editor-in-Chief
Comments - 27 December 2014, 16:16
The Armenian foreign minister Edward Nalbandyan achieved his next task
- subjected the Armenian army to CSTO. The first task was annexation
of Armenia by the Eurasian Union. Then Nalbandyan went on to lobby for
CSTO.
The Armenian army successfully dealt with sabotages by CSTO and Russia
(in the form of Azerbaijan's attacks). However, the army could not do
anything on the "political front". It does not make its own decisions.
Could the army misuse its powers and take actions like those recent
ones? It is possible but this is another conversation. It should be
noted that the army will face choice at any moment.
The Armenian government and non-government explain annexation by the
EEU and further steps by security and Karabakh issue. When is a
country most secure, when it has sovereign governmental institutions
and army or when these institutions are at the disposal of another
country which is going to use them for its own interests but are
against the interests of the country which controls these
institutions.
Gaidz Minassian, a French Armenian political scientist, asks: "How
come one has such a strong army and is waiting in fear for a
diplomatic solution." Really, why? The army proved capable of
defending the sovereignty and dignity of Armenia, and people backed
the army, which makes Armenian resistance powerful and invincible.
What were they frightened by? Azerbaijan? But this country has also
proved incapable of even shooting in the air without Russia's help.
Were they afraid of Russia? Would Russia attack Armenia? If so, what
would it look like having a strategic ally attack Armenia? So what?
Now Russia has attacked Armenia, using fear, threats, an army of
adepts of Russian-Armenian friendship and agents and fighting them is
harder than a battle where the Armenian army and people would win like
in the war in Karabakh.
When the Armenians are left alone, they win. However, they continue to
look for "guarantees of security" somewhere outside.
In fact, this is a serious issue. Feats, heroism, defense capacity are
coupled with fear, wariness, lack of belief in their own abilities and
importance.
Apparently, "peace" is not advisable for Armenia. There is no need to
go too far for examples. Let us just look at what happened after the
ceasefire of 1994. Who formed government, got big wealth and high
positions with the tolerance of the public? What is their motivation,
what do they ever have to do with public matters? Why did criminals
become the lords of the country, heads of political parties and owners
of companies and eventually announced that the right thing is to be
dominated by someone else?
This will not bring us peace but will make way for another war. The
new war will be patriotic, with two fronts, internal and external. In
addition, the internal front - fear, servility, lack of belief in
one's own forces and possibilities - will be more difficult. Not the
external enemy but these shortcomings drive the country to the verge
of internal and external disasters.
Sometimes war is the only opportunity for rebirth of demoralized societies.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/33364#sthash.tlQ2UnT8.dpuf
Haikazn Ghahriyan, Editor-in-Chief
Comments - 27 December 2014, 16:16
The Armenian foreign minister Edward Nalbandyan achieved his next task
- subjected the Armenian army to CSTO. The first task was annexation
of Armenia by the Eurasian Union. Then Nalbandyan went on to lobby for
CSTO.
The Armenian army successfully dealt with sabotages by CSTO and Russia
(in the form of Azerbaijan's attacks). However, the army could not do
anything on the "political front". It does not make its own decisions.
Could the army misuse its powers and take actions like those recent
ones? It is possible but this is another conversation. It should be
noted that the army will face choice at any moment.
The Armenian government and non-government explain annexation by the
EEU and further steps by security and Karabakh issue. When is a
country most secure, when it has sovereign governmental institutions
and army or when these institutions are at the disposal of another
country which is going to use them for its own interests but are
against the interests of the country which controls these
institutions.
Gaidz Minassian, a French Armenian political scientist, asks: "How
come one has such a strong army and is waiting in fear for a
diplomatic solution." Really, why? The army proved capable of
defending the sovereignty and dignity of Armenia, and people backed
the army, which makes Armenian resistance powerful and invincible.
What were they frightened by? Azerbaijan? But this country has also
proved incapable of even shooting in the air without Russia's help.
Were they afraid of Russia? Would Russia attack Armenia? If so, what
would it look like having a strategic ally attack Armenia? So what?
Now Russia has attacked Armenia, using fear, threats, an army of
adepts of Russian-Armenian friendship and agents and fighting them is
harder than a battle where the Armenian army and people would win like
in the war in Karabakh.
When the Armenians are left alone, they win. However, they continue to
look for "guarantees of security" somewhere outside.
In fact, this is a serious issue. Feats, heroism, defense capacity are
coupled with fear, wariness, lack of belief in their own abilities and
importance.
Apparently, "peace" is not advisable for Armenia. There is no need to
go too far for examples. Let us just look at what happened after the
ceasefire of 1994. Who formed government, got big wealth and high
positions with the tolerance of the public? What is their motivation,
what do they ever have to do with public matters? Why did criminals
become the lords of the country, heads of political parties and owners
of companies and eventually announced that the right thing is to be
dominated by someone else?
This will not bring us peace but will make way for another war. The
new war will be patriotic, with two fronts, internal and external. In
addition, the internal front - fear, servility, lack of belief in
one's own forces and possibilities - will be more difficult. Not the
external enemy but these shortcomings drive the country to the verge
of internal and external disasters.
Sometimes war is the only opportunity for rebirth of demoralized societies.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/33364#sthash.tlQ2UnT8.dpuf