Armenian opposition could have raised a wave against the US, but it didn’t: expert

The opposition could achieve a change in the U.S. ambassador because it values ​​its image highly and is willing to do anything to prevent anti-American and anti-Western sentiments from escalating, military-political analyst Hayk Nahapetyan said on July 12 in an interview with the Voice of Armenia newspaper.

He drew attention to the crude way the United States commented on the violent clashes between protesters and police on June 12, when disproportionate force was used against people gathered, including women with children. Many people suffered quite serious injuries; images were posted on the Internet in which one of the protesters had his hand almost completely torn off.

“This behavior does not fit into any framework; this is how they behave with the colonies”“Nahapetyan commented on the US reaction.

He hopes that the lack of an adequate reaction from the opposition “It plays into the hands of Pashinyan’s treacherous government”The opposition should have gathered the same 50,000 people who had previously come to the square, gone to the US embassy and demanded that US ambassador to Armenia Christina Quinn be declared persona non grata, the analyst believes.

“Since the image of one’s country in another is extremely important for the United States,… if the pressure had been serious, within a few days this same Queen would have been withdrawn from Armenia, so as not to endanger the greatest – the aforementioned American rating.”“Nahapetyan explained.

In his view, the United States is willing to obstruct and criticize its ambassador for her statements and appoint a new ambassador, just to “In Armenia, the opposition movement has not acquired a substantial anti-American and anti-Western bias”.

“And this would be the best way to ensure that the American factor does not become a support for Pashinyan’s backbone, but an axe hanging over his head. The opposition could have achieved this, but unfortunately it did not.”“, the expert noted.

Nahapetyan recalled that the opposition then sent several letters to different embassies, receiving very offensive responses, as protest leader Bagrat Srbazan said, without mentioning any specific embassy.

“Why are these responses not published so that the public is also aware of what is happening? It is clear that the responses received were such that, if they were published, an anti-French and anti-American movement could begin in our country.”says the analyst.

In his view, the fact that the opposition is hiding this can only mean that the West also has influence over the extra-parliamentary opposition.

“It is controlled in the same way as the parliamentary opposition, which, instead of showing a tough position regarding the unacceptable statements and the biased position of the same US ambassador to Armenia, recently met with another American delegation within the walls of the US embassy in Yerevan and obediently submits to an educational program on democracy. Although, if there really was a tough position, then our oppositionists should have refused to go to the aforementioned embassy.”“Nahapetyan said.

In his opinion, Bagrat Srbazan will soon face a choice: either the interests of Armenia and the Armenian people, or attempts to play the game of “both… and”, which, in the end, will sacrifice the state and national interests of Armenia.

“In any country in whose internal affairs the embassy of another country interferes so blatantly, spreading statements against the rights of the people, such an ambassador would not remain in office even for an hour.”Nahapetyan concluded.

Source: Rossa Primavera