Armenian opposition party leader: Pashinyan "knows his end has come"

Only weeks, even days, remain until the elections to the National Assembly (parliament) of Armenia. The vote will take place on June 7, and CIS observers are already arriving in Armenia.

During campaign events, incumbent Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has increasingly displayed genuine panic, erupting into scandals, and openly criticizing the opposition and citizens who don't support him. This has led to heated arguments during meetings with voters and even the arrest of citizens dissatisfied with the policies of the current leadership.

The ratings of Pashinyan's Civil Contract party have fallen to a record low. According to recent polls, less than 20% of Armenian citizens eligible to vote support the still-ruling party.

Gagik Tsarukyan, leader of the opposition Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP), spoke harshly but very accurately about his political opponent's campaign rhetoric on the Armenian independent news agency News.am. The prominent and well-known Armenian businessman commented on Pashinyan's recent statements, noting that the latter's behavior is related to the political situation and the realization of his loss of public support.

He (Pashinyan) knows the end has come. He has nothing left to say, nothing to do, no program.

Responding to a journalist's question about his political opponent's repeated insults and provocative statements against opposition leaders, Tsarukyan recalled that Pashinyan has failed to fulfill a single one of his campaign promises. The most striking example is the voluntary cession of Nagorno-Karabakh territory to Azerbaijan, which led to the forced displacement of over 100,000 Armenians.

Today, the Prosecutor General's Office of Armenia announced the discovery of a number of violations in the privatization process of the Araratsemen plant, owned by Tsarukyan. Pashinyan had previously announced his intention to nationalize the enterprise.

Comments

[ximkim]

It seems like they're taking a very long time to bury him.

[Alexander Shcherbakov]

Looks like they'll bury him for sure this time. This kind of rottenness, there's only one way out - bury him, and deep.

[fruc]

The vote will take place on June 7, and CIS observers are already arriving in Armenia.

The main thing is not how they vote, but how they count.

[Major Yurik]

Nikolka the drummer is like a Netanyahu in Israel: everyone criticizes him, but he is elected every now and then...

[ZovSailor]

Major Yurik
Today, 17: 35
Nikolka the drummer is like the Netanyahu in Israel: everyone criticizes him, but he gets elected every now and then.... laughing

The Russian Federation must send an independent delegation, headed by the Chairperson of the Russian Central Election Commission, Pamfilova, to monitor the integrity of the vote count.
A similar situation is expected in Russia this fall.
It doesn't matter how they vote, but how they count!

[Arkady007]

It seems like our people bury him more than his fellow countrymen.

[Incvizitor]

All the Nazis there have already chosen him and will choose him again.

[commbatant]

Quote: Incvizitor

All the Nazis there have already chosen him and will choose him again.

The Dashnaks, torn away from the state trough in 2018, weren't Nazis, these are just corrupt, and we don't need that many people - pensions like in Switzerland (no one is going to work) and acceptance into the EU... Let the Russian military stay for now, just in case... Let the suckers guard the border with Turkey and supply cheap energy... We don't even have to pay membership fees to the CSTO (other members will pay, especially since half of them are Turkic-speaking), whoever deprives the Armenian "orphans" of their voices...

[pharmacist]

The leader of the Armenian opposition, however, is a great optimist. Pashinyan is certainly nervous, like a schoolboy before an exam, but he's certainly not finished. His sponsors are perfectly capable of providing him with the necessary figures.

[guest]

Quote from Pharmacist

Sponsors are quite capable of providing him with the necessary figures.

Like in Moldova.

[Roman RUS]

Shit doesn't sink!
This substance has been floating at the head of Armenia for a long time

[ximkim]

Quote: Alexander Shcherbakov

Looks like they'll bury him for sure this time. This kind of rottenness, there's only one way out - bury him, and deep.

His voters will not bury him, because one look and one course.

[Serg 122]

And these aren't even Armenian citizens. They're completely different individuals...

[bukhach]

Do you seriously think this devil doesn't have supporters in Armenia itself? Remember the Bandar-logs, how they championed the "European path and democracy," claiming that all they had to do was break away from Russia and they would live without their damned Muscovite oppressors. All these former Armenians have a "little brother" complex, to varying degrees, in all its glory, and nothing can be done about it. As for me, to hell with them, fortunately, we don't share a border, as we do with many others.

[tomas.09]

His voters live in Russia.

[TermNachTer]

Pashinyan has European political scientists and money on his side. During the last election, during the Karabakh war, he bought Baku's money. This time, the Armenians will be bought with Brussels' money.

[commbatant]

Tsar Boris's rating was lower in 1996, and that was okay; he only became "tired" of reigning at the end of December 12.1999...
What's wrong with the women and men in the photos? They're all square... it's obvious they spend their days "working"; each one weighs 2 kilograms.

[pudelartemon]

Good luck to all the Nepashinyans. Otherwise, Armenia may become nothing but a memory.

[TermNachTer]

Yes, this one can finish off Armenia completely and leave.

[Nastia makarova]

So maybe it’s for the best, why give them water and food?

[ANB]

So maybe it's for the best, why give them water and food?

Sochi isn't made of rubber :)

[Nastia makarova]

We have very few Armenians in Sochi now.

[Kmet]

During election campaign events, Pashinyan increasingly displays genuine panic, breaks into scandals, and openly criticizes the opposition and citizens who do not support him.

This, rather, indicates panic hysteria stemming from fear of the consequences of failing to fulfill its obligations to Armenia's European "partners." He's so persistently severing ties with the CSTO and former partners for a reason, but at the instigation of his "new friends." Pasha Nyan has likely already calculated his future profits and managed to receive some upfront, but there's nothing left to repay, as the funds have already been spent. And now, at the most inopportune moment, the "Civil Contract" party's ratings have dropped below 20%. Apparently, a new phase of "tie-dying" will soon begin... we'll see. One can only wish the Armenian people a new, worthy leadership that won't quarrel with common sense and its own people.

[Revolver]

So they'll overthrow Pashinyan and his Sorosites, but what's the point? Artsakh has been surrendered, relations with the CSTO and, specifically, with Moscow, are ruined. So it's too late to drink Borjomi...

[solar]

The most striking example is the voluntary transfer of the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan.

I wonder what he smokes?

[TermNachTer]

Why didn't they surrender? Karabakh didn't even have an army—it had militias. How did Armenia help its fellow countrymen and co-religionists in the war against Muslims? A few hundred volunteers, some humanitarian aid, maybe some inexpensive weapons, and that's all. They could have done much more, but Pashinyan took a beating from Baku and used that money to buy his way into the elections.

[solar]

Why are they considered their fellow countrymen? None of the Armenian rulers, even before Pashinyan, considered Karabakh part of Armenia. And Armenia had no chance of fighting for Karabakh.
Are you sure you understand "voluntary transfer" correctly? Maybe you should look it up in a dictionary?

[TermNachTer]

And when they were annexing Karabakh in 1992, did they count? And there were quite a few Armenians living there during the Soviet era.

[solar]

Armenia has never officially recognized Karabakh as part of Armenia, or even as a separate state. Long before Pashinyan.

[TermNachTer]

This is a fact and it once again emphasizes their vileness.

[solar]

This is a fact and it once again emphasizes their vileness.

Who are they?
The President of Armenia from 1998 to 2008, Kocharyan, is a native of Nagorno-Karabakh.
The President of Armenia from 2008 to 2018, Sargsyan, is also a native of Nagorno-Karabakh.
For 20 years, they still haven't recognized Karabakh as part of Armenia. And now they're holding someone responsible.

[TermNachTer]

It's precisely their vileness that underscores it. It's no wonder they talk about the "Karabakh mafia" in Armenia. Surely someone was comfortable with that situation?

[solar]

It suited us, but it seems the Armenians weren’t.

[TermNachTer]

Pashinyan used Baku's money to buy the Yerevan mayoral elections, right after the war. Were Armenians happy with that?

[solar]

Who did you buy it from? What Baku money?

[TermNachTer]

This is money from Baku, which Aliyev used to pay for Karabakh.

[solar]

What kind of money came from Baku? And who did he pay it to?

[TermNachTer]

Pashinyan used this money to buy votes in the Yerevan mayoral elections and install his own man there. And then the president, but I don't know whose money that was.

[solar]

It is unclear what kind of money he bought and what votes he bought...

[TermNachTer]

There was a big article in "X," a French magazine, in October or November 2023. Pashinyan didn't help Karabakh, but received money from Baku for it.

[solar]

There was a big article in "X", a French journalist

Clearly, there was no money.
The "Karabakh clan" had driven Armenia to poverty; they had no chance against Azerbaijan. Armenians themselves had no desire to fight for Karabakh; twenty years of clan rule had discouraged them.

[Seal]

Quote: TermNachTER

In Karabakh there was no army, just a militia.

In fact, there was an army in Karabakh. It was staffed primarily by conscripts from "Greater Armenia." Even Pashinyan's son, Ashot Pashinyan, served his military service in Karabakh. He completed his service in June 2020. Had he been drafted a little later, he too would have ended up on the front lines.
So to speak, "Karabakh Armenians" staffed the artillery, special forces and some other specific units of the Karabakh army.
Here is a video of the Karabakh army parade in 2012.
https://ok.ru/video/1261831433
Here is another parade in Stepankert
https://rutube.ru/video/45421ffbcaaff4e0fe2b6fe8c8ba697c/?r=wd
Judging by what the drones are transporting, this will be sometime before 2020 or in the first half of 2020.
However, as Arayik Harutyunyan noted, conscripts from Armenia turned out to be poor soldiers and deserted en masse. So en masse that he even declared it inappropriate to bring criminal cases against the deserters, as there were "more than 10 of them." Moreover, the deserters were supported by parents in "Greater Armenia." Don't you remember the footage of the rather large rallies in Yerevan by the parents of conscripts who served in Karabakh, demanding, "President, bring our children home?" Don't you remember?
Second. Judging by comments on Russkaya Vesna in October 2020 from a couple of individuals identifying themselves as "Armenian officers," at least Armenian Army officers regularly traveled to Karabakh in October and November 2020, according to a schedule. This schedule varies. Olin wrote that he fought in Karabakh for three days, then rested in Armenia for six days, and then fought again for three days.
Another wrote that it was 4 by 4. I don’t remember the third one, since they deleted their comments pretty quickly.
But that's not the point. Can you even imagine the international consequences if Armenia openly deployed its armed forces to Karabakh? Incidentally, we signed the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Azerbaijan two months earlier than the one with Armenia. The treaty with Azerbaijan was signed on July 3, 1997, while the one with Armenia was signed on August 29, 1997.
We would have to condemn Armenia's actions. Of course, we wouldn't fight on Azerbaijan's side, but we could very well impose sanctions against Armenia and cut off their gas supply.
Moreover, a number of countries, primarily Azerbaijan itself, as well as Turkey and Pakistan, would demand an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council. They would propose a resolution not only condemning Armenia but also imposing real international sanctions against it. And not only that. The question would be raised about the UN Security Council's approval of overt military assistance to Azerbaijan from those countries to which Azerbaijan would request assistance.
And it's not a given that the Security Council would have rejected this resolution. We, Russia, wouldn't have vetoed it. Neither would China. England—likely, too. That leaves France and the United States. Perhaps they would have vetoed it? But even if they hadn't passed a tough resolution, they would still have passed a softer one condemning Armenia's aggression. That would have been enough for Turkey and Pakistan to begin providing direct military assistance to Azerbaijan. And in that case, the matter wouldn't have ended with just Karabakh and the return of all the territories that were part of Azerbaijan according to the topographic maps of the General Staff of the Soviet Army, and even the Red Army.

[TermNachTer]

Well, I was speaking figuratively, "militia." I mean, their combat effectiveness wasn't exactly lacking, but it was pretty mediocre. The Armenians didn't spend much on their army.

[solar]

Of course, we wouldn't fight on the side of Azerbaijan, but we could very well impose sanctions against Armenia and cut off their gas.

And what would that look like? Armenia, like Russia, is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and, formally, one of Russia's closest allies.

MOSCOW, February 2. /TASS/. Armenia remains a member state of the CSTO with all rights and obligations. Moscow supports Yerevan's full participation in the organization's work. This was stated in the Russian Foreign Ministry's responses to media questions.

"Armenia remains a member of the CSTO with all rights and obligations. We support Yerevan's full participation in the organization's work, as it is an integral element of the country's security," the diplomatic department noted.

[Seal]

Quote from solar

And what would that look like? Armenia, like Russia, is a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and, formally, one of Russia's closest allies.

It's okay.
First, we would likely have to urgently convene the Collective Security Council (CSC), which would have forced Armenia to leave the CSTO. Moreover, it's not a given that we would have initiated the convening of an emergency CSC. Such an initiative could have come from Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, or even all three.
Secondly, don't mix apples and oranges.
As I have explained many times, the Collective Security Treaty provides for assistance to a member country of the Treaty in the event that the member country of the Treaty she herself was subjected to aggression by third countries. But not when a member state of the Treaty itself attacks a third country. In the conflict with Azerbaijan, Armenia has been the aggressor since 1992. Because it was sovereign Armenia, in 1992, that, in violation of the UN Charter and without UN Security Council sanction, introduced its armed forces into the territory of sovereign Azerbaijan, and not vice versa. But after that, in 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan, formally at war with each other, somehow miraculously became members of a single defensive alliance—the Collective Security Treaty. NATO, for example, when admitting Greece and Turkey to the organization, first forced them to publicly and formally renounce any claims against each other.
That is, the OSCE was previously under no obligation to provide any assistance to Armenia in its conflict with Azerbaijan.
Incidentally, our Declaration on Allied Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Armenia, Oriented to the 21st Century, signed in Moscow on September 26, 2000, states that "The Parties reject military intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states in violation of the UN Charter and without the sanction of the UN Security Council."
What does it mean ?
This means that Kocharyan has signed up to the fact that he condemns the actions of his predecessor Ter-Petrosyan, who, in violation of the UN Charter and without the sanction of the UN Security Council, in 1992 introduced the armed forces of the newly independent Armenia into the territory of the newly independent sovereign Azerbaijan.
And what does this mean in turn?
This means that the parties have recognized that the Declaration on Allied Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Armenia, Oriented to the 21st Century, signed in Moscow on September 26, 2000, applies to any attack on Armenia, but does not apply to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, in which Armenia is recognized as the aggressor by the entire international community.
NATO, by the way, operates under the same principle. Trump is furious that no NATO member has come to the aid of the US in its war with Iran. But Trump can't actually invoke NATO mechanisms. Because it wasn't Iran that attacked the US; it was the US that was the aggressor against Iran.
Or take Poland's attacks on us, saying, "We, Poland, will introduce Polish troops into Ukrainian territory and help Ukraine 'repel Russian aggression.'" The then NATO Secretary General, Rasmussen, responded with something like, "We can welcome this initiative from Poland. However, we hope that the Polish leadership understands that Poland cannot rely on Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty in this case. This would be a personal war between Poland and Russia."
So, formally, Armenia and I are certainly allies. But allies with limitations. That is, we are allies in everything that doesn't concern the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. If Georgia were to suddenly attack Armenia, the entire CSTO would come to Armenia's aid.
But if Armenia itself had attacked Georgia, it would have been the same as in the case of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

[solar]

First, we would likely have to urgently convene the Collective Security Council (CSC), which would have forced Armenia to leave the CSTO. Moreover, it's not a given that we would have initiated the convening of an emergency CSC. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, or Kazakhstan could have taken the initiative.

They might not have spoken out. And in general, one wonders how it is that here in the treaty we're allies, but here we were just wrapping up the fish. It's hard to read. So what then?

[Seal]

Quote from solar

And in general, I wonder how it is that here in the treaty we're allies, but here they were wrapping up fish. It's hard to read. So what then?

The problem isn't the treaty. The problem is that, in some kind of frenzy, the Collective Security Treaty was joined by two countries that were at war with each other. And after one of these two countries (the victim of aggression) failed to renew its membership, the membership of the other country (the aggressor) was somehow not frozen.
It's all because, at that time, we, Russia, were under external control from the Washington Regional Committee. That's why we're still stuck, so to speak, on the issue of Armenia, and on a number of other issues as well.

[solar]

The CSTO was established in 2003. Azerbaijan has never been a member, and was only briefly a member of its predecessor, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Armenia is one of the founding countries of the CSTO. Membership in the CSTO cannot be frozen, if only because decisions are made by consensus. And there's no such provision in the Charter.
Regarding the aggressor, it's also not simple. Armenia did not annex Karabakh; it formally remained a separate, partially recognized state.

[Seal]

Sorry, but if you carefully read the CSTO documents, you'll easily see that the CSTO's founding document is the Collective Security Treaty. If you don't believe me, go to the CSTO's official website.
Here...from there:
April 26, 2012 Download the document Collective Security Treaty.doc
COLLECTIVE SECURITY TREATY of May 15, 1992
(as amended by the Protocol on Amendments to the Collective Security Treaty of 15 May 1992, signed on 10 December 2010).
The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is not the predecessor of the CSTO, but its foundation. If the Treaty of May 15, 1992, was amended in 2010, this indicates that the Treaty of May 15, 1992, was in effect then and remains in effect today. If the organization survives, the Treaty may continue to be amended. This will not render the 1992 Treaty invalid.
What's the difference between the Treaty on Security and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)? This information is also available on the official CSTO website. There's a clickable line there, "From Treaty to Organization." Click it and read on.
And it says the following:

Until 2002, the Treaty was essentially a regional agreement, which played an important role in maintaining close cooperation and mutual understanding in the military-political sphere.

On May 14, 2002, in Moscow, the Collective Security Council adopted a decision to grant the Collective Security Treaty the status international regional organization.

That's all.
What you indicated

Armenia is one of the founding countries of the CSTO.

- That's true. But it must be admitted that this is somewhat absurd. The aggressor country, which at that time occupied approximately 20% of the territory of another sovereign state, became one of the founders of the Collective Security Treaty Organization.

Quote from solar

Regarding the aggressor, it's also not simple. Armenia did not annex Karabakh; it formally remained a separate, partially recognized state.

Why not simple? Quite simply. Armenia is a party to the conflict. This is documented. See the Ceasefire Agreement of May 12, 1994 (attached). The first to sign this Agreement was then Azerbaijani Defense Minister Mamedrafi Mamedov on May 9, 1994; Armenian Defense Minister Serzh Sargsyan signed it on May 10, 1994; and Commander-in-Chief of the Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army Samvel Babayan signed it only on May 11, 1994.
From the perspective of international law, everything is transparent. Any sovereign country that introduces its armed forces into the territory of another sovereign country, in violation of the UN Charter and without UN Security Council sanction, is an aggressor. Whose armed forces were on the territory of sovereign Azerbaijan in 1992? It was the armed forces of sovereign Armenia that were on the territory of sovereign Azerbaijan in 1992. Isn't that right?
But this is yours

Quote from solar

It formally remained a separate, partially recognized state.

Where from? Who allegedly "partially recognized" the partially Armenian-controlled part of Azerbaijan's Nagorno-Karabakh region as a state? And how was this "recognition" expressed?
As I've said many times, we, Russia, like all UN member states, on March 02.03, 1992, roughly before lunch, somewhere between 11:00 and 12:30 New York time, recognized Azerbaijan within the borders of the Azerbaijan SSR. That is, with Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. And since then, we, Russia, have not changed this position. Officially, we have not changed it.
And what the various Zatulins, Migranyans, Mirzayans, Tsaturyans, Bagdasarovs and others said on TV screens - I don’t care, because what they convey is not the official position of Russia, but the private opinion of these figures.

[solar]

If you know that the UN has recognized Armenia as an aggressor state, please provide the link. The rest is just a hoax. The Armenians claim they were there for humanitarian purposes, to prevent interethnic massacres.

[Seal]

Do you think that since the formation of the UN on planet Earth there have been cases of aggression of one country against another, or has peace, smoothness and God's grace reigned throughout the planet?
If you believe that peace, smoothness and God's grace reigned over the entire planet, and everything else was just a manipulation of words, then it's your choice, you have the right to think so.
But if you believe that since the founding of the UN there have been cases of aggression by one country (or group of countries) against another country, then please tell me how many times has the UN Security Council made decisions recognizing this or that country (or group of countries) as an aggressor or aggressors?
Don't worry, I'll tell you myself. The UN Security Council has officially recognized this or that country as an aggressor. only once in history. This occurred in 1950 during the Korean War (UN Security Council Resolutions 82 and 83), when the armed attack of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on the Republic of South Korea was classified as an act of aggression.
So, who cares what the Armenians are telling themselves (meaning, to you?)? There's an indisputable fact: the deployment of Armenian armed forces, in violation of the UN Charter, without the sanction of the UN Security Council, into the territory of the sovereign state of Azerbaijan. But yes, everything else is just a hoax.
However, despite the UN Security Council's lack of direct designation of Armenia as an aggressor state, UN Security Council resolutions nonetheless explicitly recognize Armenia as an occupier. Please, I'm attaching an example.

[solar]

Do you think that since the formation of the UN on planet Earth there have been cases of aggression of one country against another?

Of course, there were. Acts of aggression have been officially recognized by the UN on numerous occasions. It's not always the case that one side is officially recognized as the aggressor or accused of acts of aggression, but such cases are nonetheless known, and they are not isolated.
For example, recognition of the systematic acts of aggression by Southern Rhodesia against Mozambique.
https://docs.un.org/ru/S/RES/411(1977)
or South Africa's acts of aggression against Angola.
https://docs.un.org/ru/S/RES/546(1984)

The UN has officially designated a country as an aggressor only once in history. This occurred in 1950 during the Korean War (UN Security Council Resolutions 82 and 83), when the armed attack by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) on the Republic of South Korea was classified as an act of aggression.

In this case, the terms "aggression" or "act of aggression" were not used in the UN Security Council resolutions; the event was officially classified as a "breach of the peace." Officially, the words "aggression" or "act of aggression" do not appear in UN Security Council Resolutions 82 and 83.
As is the case with Armenia.

[Seal]

Quote from solar

Acts of aggression have been officially recognized by the UN on numerous occasions. While it's not always the case that one side is officially recognized as the aggressor or accused of acts of aggression, such cases are known and not isolated.
For example, recognition of the systematic acts of aggression by Southern Rhodesia against Mozambique.
https://docs.un.org/ru/S/RES/411(1977)
or South Africa's acts of aggression against Angola.
https://docs.un.org/ru/S/RES/546(1984)

Wonderful. You see, you found even more than I did. However, it should be noted here that the so-called "apartheid regime of South Africa" ​​and the "racist regime of Southern Rhodesia" were already constant bogeymen, both in the UN Security Council and at UN General Assemblies. Moreover, they were almost equally criticized by both the "communist bloc countries" and the "imperialist camp" (the United States, Britain, France, and others).
Incidentally, although the text of UN Security Council Resolution No. 82 of June 25, 1950, which was voted on individually, does not contain the term "aggression", it remains in a more general document called "Official Report of the Security Council No. 15".
To sum up all of the above, I hope that now you have no doubts about who is the aggressor in the war that began between Armenia and Azerbaijan immediately after these countries gained independence and sovereignty in the first half of 1992?
In fact, it was precisely this moment that proved decisive both for us, Russia in particular, and for the CSTO as a whole, and completely dismisses all of Armenia’s far-fetched claims against us and against the entire CSTO.
It is no wonder that Joseph Vissarionovich, even before the formation of the UN, very strictly demanded that the military on June 21, 1941, “not give in to provocations,” because he understood that recognizing the Reich as an aggressor would cost a lot.

[solar]

It remained in a more general document called "Official Report of the Security Council No. 15."

This isn't the text of the resolution or the official title of the document. It's a technical staff entry on the list; no one voted for it.

Now you have no doubts left

The conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis began during the Soviet era and continued, which is why it was not officially classified as an act of aggression, as it would have been taken out of context.

It is no wonder that Joseph Vissarionovich, even before the formation of the UN, very strictly demanded that the military on June 21, 1941 “not give in to provocations.”

He didn't believe Germany could attack, as there were no objective grounds for it, and he didn't want war to break out due to a misunderstanding. Who knew Hitler would commit such a foolish act as a two-front war, something he himself had warned against long before in Mein Kapf?

[Seal]

Quote from solar

This is not the text of the resolution or the official title of the document.

Did I ever say otherwise? In my opinion, it's just the opposite. I made it clear right away that

By the way, though, in the text of UN Security Council Resolution No. 82 of June 25, 1950, which voted for each item separately, and there is no term "aggression", it remained in a more general document called "Official Report of the Security Council No. 15."

What's the problem? What are you arguing about?

Quote from solar

That the conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis began during the Soviet era and continued further

What happened under the USSR was the USSR's internal affair. To claim that under the USSR, one part of the USSR was displaying aggression against another part of the USSR is nonsense. And stupid. However, with the collapse of the USSR, all former fraternal Soviet socialist republics gained independence, and on March 2, 1992, both countries (Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as Georgia, Kazakhstan, and the Central Asian republics) became members of the UN. Since gaining independence, Armenia and Azerbaijan have acted as subjects of international law (even before joining the UN). It is from the moment of independence that the actions of these countries can be assessed from the perspective of international law. Before that
(I repeat once again) their squabbles were an internal matter of the USSR.

Quote from solar

He did not believe in the possibility of a German attack.

Let's not play with words like "I believe it or not." Because whether Stalin believed in something or not could only be said by Stalin himself, either personally or through his memoirs. He personally didn't say, "I didn't believe Hitler attacked," and he left no memoirs. So, discussing it on the level of "he believed it or not" is a complete waste of time.
But I.V. Stalin's demands "not to succumb to provocations" are documented.

[solar]

What's the problem? What are you arguing about?

I'm not arguing. I'm pointing out that the wording provided is irrelevant.

It is from the moment of gaining independence that the actions of these countries can be assessed

It's unclear what you're proving. The word "aggression" was not used in this conflict.

Because only Stalin himself could say whether Stalin believed in something or not.

Let's put it another way. Stalin had no reason to allow an attack—it would have contradicted the entire logic of Soviet-German relations at that time. The USSR was busy negotiating the accession of Germany, Italy, and Japan to the alliance, and only Italy's position prevented it from joining—the USSR had no disagreements with Germany.

The Four Axis Powers Pact was a draft treaty of friendship and economic support with the possibility of joint military action against other countries, which was planned to be concluded between the USSR and the Axis countries at the end of 1940.

On November 12, 1940, Hitler proposed to Vyacheslav Molotov, who was visiting Berlin, that the USSR join the Axis powers as a full fourth party. The draft treaty was drafted by Joachim von Ribbentrop and was read to Molotov on November 13, 1940.

Germany's attack at such a moment was a frankly stupid decision on Hitler's part.

[Seal]

Quote from solar

It's unclear what you're proving. The word "aggression" was not used in this conflict.

Okay, it wasn't used. But the terms "occupation" and "occupying forces" do appear in UN Security Council resolutions. And specifically in relation to Armenia. So, there's no escaping the fact that Armenia was the aggressor in the war with Azerbaijan. And judging by the fact that the CSTO didn't provide Armenia with any assistance, the CSTO was perfectly aware of this. Similarly, judging by the fact that we, Russia, didn't provide Armenia with any assistance, Russia's top leadership was also perfectly aware of this. What makes you stubbornly deny the obvious?

Quote from solar

Let's put it another way: Stalin had no reason to allow the attack.

Sorry, but this is essentially the same thing, only in profile. Let's focus on the facts. Is I.V. Stalin's demand to show restraint and not succumb to provocation a fact? Or, in your opinion, "not a fact"?
More about aggression.
The definition of aggression as the unlawful use of force in interstate relations was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 14, 1974. The document received resolution 3314 (XXIX).
According to this definition, aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.
Among the actions that qualify as an act of aggression (regardless of a declaration of war) are mentioned:
- invasion or attack by the armed forces of a state on the territory of another state;
- military occupation resulting from such invasion or attack;
- annexation of the territory of another state or part of it by use of force;
- bombing by the armed forces of a state of the territory of another state;
- the use of any weapon by a state against the territory of another state;
- blockade of ports or coasts of a state by the armed forces of another state;
- an attack by the armed forces of a state on the land, sea or air forces or fleets of another state;
- the use of armed forces of one state, located on the territory of another state by agreement with the receiving state, in violation of the terms of the agreement, or the continuation of their presence on such territory after the termination of the agreement;
the action of a state in allowing its territory to be used by another state to commit an act of aggression against a third state;
- the sending by a state or on its behalf of armed gangs, groups or mercenaries who carry out acts of armed force against another state.
Just think about what from this list can be blamed on Azerbaijan, and what can be blamed on Armenia, starting from the moment these states gained independence.

[solar]

But the terms "occupation" and "occupying forces" are present in UN Security Council resolutions.

Occupation and aggression are far from the same thing. Generally, the term "occupation" is neutral; in our country, it has a negative connotation. For example, the USSR and England occupied Iran during World War II. However, they were not accused of aggression.

[Seal]

Quote from solar

They are not accused of aggression.

Hmm. I didn't expect such a naive argument from you. This time, you failed to take into account that history is always written by the victors. That's why in modern history both the occupation of Iran (far from bloodless, since according to available information, the Red Army lost about 50 men killed in the first, most active days of Operation Harmony alone. This figure, of course, increased later, but the Red Army suffered the greatest losses during our military action in Iran not in battle. Malaria and typhus turned out to be the most dangerous enemies for Soviet soldiers on Persian soil. Over 4000 sick Red Army soldiers were evacuated to hospitals in the USSR. Data on the death toll could not be found, but no one denies that they occurred. The British also suffered losses. Well, no one counted the Persian losses.) and the occupation of Iceland (bloodless) are presented exclusively in a positive light. However, the occupation of Southern France, Northern Italy, Hungary, and Slovakia by the Reich during the final period of the war were all acts of aggression by the agonizing Hitler regime.
After the war, the Allies established occupation zones in Germany and Austria. The term is more neutral here. However, this was achieved after very bloody battles that ended with the capitulation of the Reich.
Or perhaps you believe Israel's occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights isn't an act of aggression either? Moreover, in the case of the Golan Heights, Israel's justification is that it occupied the territory after Syria itself invaded Israel in 1967, which Israel repelled. Nevertheless, UN documents condemn Israel's occupation of the Syrian Golan Heights.
P.S. What are you trying to "prove"? That Armenia wasn't the aggressor in the war it unleashed against Azerbaijan immediately after the collapse of the USSR? I couldn't care less about either country. But I'm all for not distorting real, documented modern history.
By trying to place Armenia and Azerbaijan on equal footing, you are accusing us, Russia, of failing to support Armenia in its conflict with Azerbaijan. These accusations would be true if matters were truly as you are attempting to portray them. However, the entire course of history since September 27, 2020, shows otherwise. The course of history since September 27, 2020 shows that Russia's top leadership and the CSTO Council were perfectly aware that Armenia was the aggressor in Armenia's conflict with Azerbaijan. And that is precisely why neither we, Russia, nor the CSTO as a whole provided any assistance to Armenia after September 27, 2020. Even when Azerbaijani shells began landing on Armenian territory. This is precisely because Armenia was the aggressor in its conflict with Azerbaijan.

[vitaliy20091959]

What is this? Are they going to put Armenians on our necks again?

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: vitaliy20091959

What is this? Are they going to put Armenians on our necks again?

What do you mean "again"? Have they ever come off?

[bukhach]

To be fair, the time after the revolution was short, but if you dig deeper, the Armenians certainly weren't living off Russia while under Ottoman rule. Maybe they should have stayed there, it only made things easier for us, but some Armenians have even gone so far as to blame the Russians for the massacres of Armenians by the Turks. If they start actively instilling this point of view in schools, in two or three decades, Armenians will become quite capable Bandar-logs.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Buhach

Armenians certainly weren't living off Russia when they were under the Ottomans.

And when we were under the Romans, even more so...
Cut the sturgeon.

[bukhach]

No, well, before the Romans, too, there was even some independence. Regarding the sturgeon... do you really not see the difference between the Turks and all the other conquerors of Armenia who came before them? If anything, the Ottomans are still neighbors of the Armenians, while your Romans have sunk into oblivion, and in terms of time, the Turks have outdone everyone, including us. Let the European Union now take care of Armenia, or whoever else among their neighbors.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Buhach

Do you really not see the difference between the Turks and all the other conquerors of Armenia who came before them?

Do you really not see the difference between Russia and the "other CONQUERORS of Armenia"©? Russia CONQUERED Armenia?
So what exactly, what - cut down the sturgeon.

[bukhach]

Turn on your brain and stop guessing for me—where did I say we conquered Armenia? I see it here, I read it there, and I understand it all my own way. What a powerful intellect you have! Ask the Armenians how they think, not those in Russia but those in their own country, although there are plenty of Armenian Nazis there too. Soon another museum of occupation will appear, following the example of Georgia and other former countries. It seems I overestimated your ability to grasp the true meaning of messages and was foolish enough to write a few lines addressing you. I have a far cry from your ability to see what's not there, so please allow me to take my leave.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Buhach

Turn on your brain and don't make up my mind for me.

Indeed! You'll have to deal with the extra speculation yourself. The original point was that the Armenians had always been living off Russia. Why did you bring the Turks into the mix (and why not the Romans?)? You'd have to ask your dark genius inside you...

Quote: Buhach

However, you have a powerful intellect.

Quote: Buhach

It seems I overestimated your ability to grasp the correct meaning of messages.

Drink less and everything will be fine! Stop overestimating your own intelligence, for starters.

Quote: Buhach

I was stupid enough to write a couple of lines addressing you.

This is indisputable! I did. And precisely that, "stupidity." I repeat - you need to drink less!

Quote: Buhach

I am far from your abilities.

Totally agree!

Quote: Buhach

and therefore allow me to take my leave.

I give you permission. I'm feeling kind today.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Buhach

In terms of time, the Turks have surpassed everyone, including us.

Thanks, laughed.
Don't confuse the Roman Empire with today's Italy, or the Sublime Porte with today's Turkey. And the Armenians, by the way, no matter how much some might wish otherwise, existed LONG before the Ottomans, so "in terms of time" they surpassed the Turks by a huge margin.

[Seal]

Quote: Vasyan1971

And the Armenians, by the way, no matter how much anyone would like the opposite, were there LONG before the Ottomans

Is it any wonder that the Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary, which, in addition to explaining words, provides the date (year or century) when the term was first recorded in circulation, dates the appearance of the term "Armenian" to 1598? (I'm attaching a scan.)

Quote: Vasyan1971

so "in terms of time"© they surpassed the Turks by a huge margin.

In the spelling "Turks" - yes. But in the spelling variant “turuku” (turukku) - far from it.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Seal

And it's nothing that the Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary

To drool over the Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary.
"Greater Armenia, the ancient state of the Armenians (6th century BC - 387) which covered the main regions of the Armenian Highlands. The capitals were Armavir and Artashat.
Its origins date back to the 6th century BC. It later became a satrapy within the ancient Persian empire of the Achaemenids. In the 330s BC, Armenia became part of the empire of Alexander the Great, along with the entire Persian Empire that had been conquered by him.
Armenians have been, are, and will continue to be! When they were making trouble in the Caucasus (back when it wasn't even called the Caucasus), there were no Turks as such—they were hanging around somewhere in the vicinity of what was then Iran, unaware that they were Turks.
Everything else is from the Evil One.
Well, the fact that the Turkish alphabet appeared in 1928 is a real treat!

[Seal]

I swear mom

Quote: Vasyan1971

"Greater Armenia, the ancient state of the Armenians (6th century BC - 387) which covered the main regions of the Armenian Highlands. The capitals were Armavir and Artashat.

Again from the same “I swear on my mother” series, but this time from my side
The Turukku (also referred to in sources as Turukkum, Tukru, Turkum, Ti-ru-ki-i, Ti-ru-ki, Tu-ru-ki...) were a Bronze and Iron Age people who inhabited the Zagros mountain range in what is now Iran and adjacent regions of Mesopotamia. The Turukku lived in the foothills of the Zagros, east of the Tigris River, in the area of ​​Lake Urmia (present-day South Azerbaijan and Iranian Kurdistan). They were the autochthonous (native) population of this region. The first mentions of the Turukku appear in the 18th–17th centuries BC in the archives of the city of Mari (present-day Syria) and in Assyrian texts from the time of King Shamshi-Adad I.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Seal

I swear mom

Don't bother your mother. And especially not the Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary. It's pointless! And after the revelations about the "Ancient Ukrainians," it's also ridiculous beyond belief...

[Seal]

Quote: Vasyan1971

And after the revelations about the "Ancient Ukrainians" there's also something incredibly funny...

Revelations about the ancient Ukrainians are no funnier than revelations about the various "great empires of ancient times," including, of course, the "great Armenian kingdoms."

Quote: Vasyan1971

No need to nag mom.

So this is the only "proof" of the existence of both the "great ancient empires of antiquity" in the now still official version of history, and the deeds of the "great ancient Ukrainians" in the now official history of the "Ancient World of Ukraine", isn't it?
You're wrong about the Oxford Dictionary. It's a very useful and necessary work. It's also a real thorn in the side of professional historians, who prefer to ignore it and demand the same from others. I hope you're not one of them? Or what?

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Seal

Revelations about the ancient Ukrainians are no funnier than revelations about the various "great empires of ancient times," including, of course, the "great Armenian kingdoms."

Exactly! However, for some reason this doesn't work in the case of the "ancient Turuks." For some reason...

Quote: Seal

Those who prefer to "ignore" it at all costs and demand the same from others. I hope you're not one of them? Or what?

I repeat:

Quote: Vasyan1971

To drool over the Oxford Encyclopedic Dictionary.

Quote: Vasyan1971

Armenians were, are and will eat!

No matter how much the authors of this conduit would like it.

Quote: Seal

I hope you are not one of them? Or what?

Looking for like-minded people? Uh-huh...
Well, if the existence of the Macedonian Empire, the Roman Empire, and, to top it all off, the Armenian Kingdom, are necessarily put in quotation marks for you, then who is your doctor?

[Seal]

Quote: Vasyan1971

Exactly! However, for some reason this doesn't work in the case of the "ancient Turuks." For some reason.

God bless you. It works. And it's exactly at your level of "I swear on my mother, that's how it really happened."

Quote: Vasyan1971

Looking for like-minded people? Uh-huh.

Why? I'm already in great company. And certainly not you. Because those who believe in fairy tales are of no interest to me.

Quote: Vasyan1971

Well, if the existence of the Macedonian Empire, the Roman Empire, and, to top it all off, the Armenian Kingdom, are necessarily put in quotation marks for you, then who is your doctor?

Do you think they all need a doctor too?

Our entire history is a fiction that everyone agrees with.
Вольтер

There are many pages in the history of any nation that would be magnificent if they were true.
D. Didro

If you remove all the lies from history, this does not mean at all that only the truth will remain - as a result, there may be nothing left at all.
Stanislav E. Lec

The information that the ancients did not have was very extensive.
Mark Twain

God cannot change the past, but historians can. And it must be precisely because they sometimes provide this service that God tolerates their existence.
Samuel Butler

History has been rewritten to such a state that even historians themselves are at a loss about what the word “history” means.
David Bowie

History has the same relation to truth as theology has to faith, namely, nothing.
Robert Heinlein

Perhaps a more accurate description of what never happened is the historian's inalienable privilege and specialty.
Oscar Wilde

History is the quintessence of gossip.
Thomas Carlyle


History is just a fable accepted by everyone.
B. Fontenel

Our only duty to history is to continually rewrite it. Oscar Wilde


History is like meat pate: it’s better not to look closely at how it’s prepared.
Aldous Huxley

History is the product of the secretions of the glands of a million historians.
John Steinbeck


Those who make history often at the same time fake it.
Weslav Brudzinsky

History is too serious a matter to be left to historians.
Ian McLeod

The story begins when nothing is impossible to verify.
Vyacheslav Verkhovsky

Everything is in the hands of the Lord, and only History has escaped His control.
Zbigniew Hedgehog

History does not repeat itself - historians simply repeat each other.
Clement F. Rogers

No one has changed the history of mankind like historians.
E. Mackenzie

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Seal

God bless you. It works. And it's exactly at your level of "I swear on my mother, that's how it really happened."

Only in the depths of your consciousness. And I'm not a doctor of the relevant specialty.

Quote: Seal

I'm already in great company.

That's noticeable.

Quote: Seal

And certainly not you.

And this is good on the one hand.
On the other hand, you're being disingenuous, my dear, because you're persistently trying to convince me of your nonsense about mythical "turuks." You're not exactly a reassurer... You've piled up a ton of quotes and copied and pasted pictures to support your nonsense...

Quote: Seal

Because those who believe in fairy tales are of no interest to me.

Why are you spreading them then? And even swearing on your mother's as a killer argument?

Quote: Seal

I swear mom

Quote: Seal

Do you think they all need a doctor too?

Who "them"?
However, if it's important to you to have the final say, I won't interfere. Remain the winner in your dreams; it won't affect the real world in any way.

[Seal]

Quote: Vasyan1971

Who is "them"?

Oh, you didn't get it? Really? Or are you just pretending to? Okay, if you really didn't get it, let me clarify. "To them"—meaning all the people who have expressed even more critical views than I have about the quality of our history (I hope it's clear that I'm talking about Ancient and Ancient history, as well as a significant portion of Medieval history). So, do you understand?

Quote: Vasyan1971

Why are you spreading them then? And even swearing on your mother's as a killer argument?

Oh, this is pure Ukrainian: "And what about us?" Yes, for that very reason. Two can play this game. You spread tales invented by historians about "Great Ancient Armenia," and I spread exactly the same information from historians that the Turukku (also mentioned in "sources" as Turukkum, Tukru, Turkum, Ti-ru-ki-i, Ti-ru-ki, Tu-ru-ki...) were a people of the Bronze and Iron Ages who inhabited the Zagros mountain range in what is now Iran and adjacent regions of Mesopotamia. The Turukku lived in the foothills of the Zagros, east of the Tigris River, in the area of ​​Lake Urmia (present-day South Azerbaijan and Iranian Kurdistan). They were the autochthonous (native) population of this region. The first mentions of the Turukku appear in the 18th–17th centuries BC. in the archives of the city of Mari (modern Syria) and in Assyrian texts from the time of King Shamshi-Adad I
What's the problem? You probably thought the right to spread fairy tales belonged solely to you? Let me explain that you're mistaken. You don't have a monopoly on the dissemination of fairy tales once invented by historians. Two people can play this game just fine.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Seal

This game can be played by two people.

So your "turuk hayi" are also fairy tales. Delusional. On par with Atlantis, Great Tartary, and other ancient Ukrainians. Congratulations. Keep playing. In your own company, of course.

Quote: Seal

I'm already in great company. And certainly not you.

Quote: Seal

I swear mom

[Seal]

Quote: Vasyan1971

So your "turuk hayi" are also fairy tales. Delusional. On the level of Atlantis, Great Tartary, and other ancient Ukrainians. Congratulations on that.

On par with all ancient tales. Including, as you rightly noted, Atlantis, Great Tartary, and other ancient Ukrainians. But also on par with "Great Ancient Greece," "Great Ancient Macedonian Empire," "Great Ancient Roman Empire," "Great Ancient Armenian Kingdom," and the less ancient "Great Mongolia." So, congratulations.

Quote: Vasyan1971

In my company, of course

By the way, I'm very grateful to you for including me among the greatest minds of humanity. I didn't claim this myself, for I personally didn't invent anything new, but merely modestly shared their opinion on the quality of our history:
Well, the fact that you only allow yourself and others like you to play is your problem.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Seal

By the way, I am very grateful to you for including me in the company of the greatest minds of humanity.

Another manipulation and lie! From "greatest minds" to "ranked". I simply didn't argue with your own assertions because I don't need to. I see no point in proving maxims like "water is wet," "wind blows," or "snow is cold" to someone who would contradict you in principle.

Quote: Seal

This game can be played by two people.

Quote: Seal

you only allow yourself and others like you to play

Another kindergarten-level manipulation. So

Quote: Seal

It's your problems

and I'm not your doctor.

[Seal]

Quote: Vasyan1971

I just didn't argue with your own statements,

Mine? Are you sure I'm Diderot or Voltaire?

Quote: Vasyan1971

Another kindergarten-level manipulation

Precisely, kindergarten. Because the same books (official, so-called "academic") write about "ancient Armenian kingdoms" and about the existence of the Turukku people, who were the autochthonous (native) population of this region.
But with you, everything is as usual with your flat-earthers: here I read, here I don’t read, here I’ll wrap a herring.

Quote: Vasyan1971

and I'm not your doctor.

Similarly.

[Vasyan1971]

Another cheap manipulation.

Quote: Seal

I'm already in great company.

Quote: Seal

Mine? Are you sure I'm Diderot or Voltaire?

I'm absolutely sure it wasn't even lying nearby.

Quote: Seal

Quote: Vasyan1971
and I'm not your doctor.
Similarly.

So there is no need to try to treat anyone. Equating the self-designation (at best) of a mythical tribe of troglodytes with today's Turks, based on phonetic similarity, is a diagnosis. Ask your doctor what that diagnosis is.

[Seal]

Quote: Vasyan1971

So there is no need to try to treat anyone.

Are you having trouble understanding what's being written? If someone told you, "I'm not your doctor," that means I didn't and don't intend to treat you. Why should I waste my time on something useless?

Quote: Vasyan1971

To draw an equal sign between the self-designation (at best) of a mythical tribe of some troglodytes and today's Turks, based on phonetic consonance, is a diagnosis.

I think you'd better check with your local historian. Historians (official historians) officially accept the term "Türük" as an ancient form of the ethnonym "Türk." Over time, this lexeme has evolved into the modern form "Türk."
One more thing. The terms "Turks" and "Turks" are unique to us. Well, maybe some historians who studied in the USSR still use them. In the rest of the world, there's only one term: "Turks."
I'll repeat it especially for you. The Turukku are not mythical troglodytes, but a people officially recognized by official historians. No matter how much you might wish otherwise.
By the way, what is the name of that mental state of yours that makes you "spit" on the OED? You should also check with your doctor.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Seal

Are you having trouble understanding what's written? If someone told you, "I'm not your doctor," that means I never intended to treat you.

Really? So what have you been doing for so long? Are you confused and trying to confuse me too?

Quote: Seal

I think it would be better for you to check this with yours.

You can believe whatever you want if your doctor allows you to.

Quote: Seal

the term "Türük" is an ancient form of the ethnonym "Turk".

Yeah. Here's the official analogy: dill-steal-ukr-ukraine.

Quote: Seal

Repeat especially for you.

Why? Are you continuing to mess with my head?

Quote: Seal

What is the name of that mental state of yours that makes you "spit" on the OED? You should also check with your doctor.

It's called "common sense." Ask your doctor; he'll explain what it is.

[Seal]

Quote: Vasyan1971

Yeah. Here's the official analogy: dill-steal-ukr-ukraine.

На бытовом уровне лично я не возражаю, чтобы было именно так. Но поскольку я не плоскоземедлец, то увы, не могу эту вашу версию принять серьезно. Но тем не менее у вас не всё потеряно, вы попробуйте убедить в этом вашем выводе Официальную Историю. Которая утверждает, что термин "Türük" - это древняя форма этнонима «тюрк» и, что со временем эта лексема трансформировалась в современную форму «Türk».
С учётом того, что весь мир (кроме нас и еще немногих, получивших "историческое образование" в СССР или уже в РФ) термин "тюрки" - не использует. У них всё - турки.
Ну да, вот такой он у вас оригинальный "здравый" смысл. На то, что вам не нравится - вы пилюёте или не читаете. Хотя это (то, что вам не нравится про термин "Türük") написано в тех же самых книгах, которые во всех остальных местах вам нравятся.
Впрочем, это типично для плоскоземельцев, для которых вопросы Древней Истории - это вопрос исключительно веры.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Seal

Но поскольку я не плоскоземедлец, то увы, не могу эту вашу версию принять серьезно.

ХренЪ редьки не слаще. Что "плоскоземелец", что "турук-хайец" разница не велика. Кстати у адептов плоской земли тоже своя логика, свои резоны и свои "научные авторитетные" доказательства. Как и у состоящих в секте "Фоменко&Носовского". Так что вы для меня на одном уровне и отношение к вам одинаковое.

Quote: Seal

Ну да, вот такой он у вас оригинальный "здравый" смысл.

Именно. Здравый смысл либо есть (как у меня), либо его заменяет махровая бредятина (как у вас).
Так что спокойно фапайте на свой кумир OED, мешать не собираюсь.

[Seal]

Вот и я про то же самое. Вы замечательно написали вот это

Quote: Vasyan1971

ХренЪ редьки не слаще. Что "плоскоземелец", что "турук-хайец" разница не велика.

Действительно, поскольку именно официальная версия истории утверждает, что термин "Türük" - это древняя форма этнонима «тюрк» и, что со временем эта лексема трансформировалась в современную форму «Türk» ( впрочем, эта официальная версия Истории еще много чего утверждает, там про великую империю Александра Македонского, про Великую Античную Древнюю Грецию и еще более великую Античную Римскую империю, не говоря уже о великих древних армянских империях и т.д.) - то вы совершенно верно определили эту официальную версию истории как "плоскоземельщина".
Я целиком и полностью разделяю это Ваше мнение.
Продолжайте радовать меня своими новыми просветлениями

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Seal

термин "Türük" - это древняя форма этнонима «тюрк»

Ага. "Доподлинно известно лишь то, что в научный оборот термин «тюрк, тюркский» был запущен датским ученым-лингвистом Вильгельмом Томсеном в соавторстве с другими западноевропейскими учеными в конце 19–начале 20 века."© Источник цЫтаты при желании можно найти без труда.
И все ваши измышления вполне аналогичны потугам "официальных" историков на тему Великоукров, Великороссов и прочих отбитых и отмороженных "правдорубов".
А значит - их можно легко и непринужденно игнорировать, что и делают нормальные вменяемые люди, вроде меня.
И надо ещё посмотреть, кто кого больше радует.

[Vasyan1971]

Quote: Seal

термин "Türük" - это древняя форма этнонима «тюрк»

Ага. "Доподлинно известно лишь то, что в научный оборот термин «тюрк, тюркский» был запущен датским ученым-лингвистом Вильгельмом Томсеном в соавторстве с другими западноевропейскими учеными в конце 19–начале 20 века."© Источник цЫтаты при желании можно найти без труда.
И все ваши измышления вполне аналогичны потугам "официальных" историков на тему Великоукров, Великороссов и прочих отбитых и отмороженных "правдорубов".
А значит - их можно легко и непринужденно игнорировать, что и делают нормальные вменяемые люди, вроде меня.
И надо ещё посмотреть, кто кого больше радует.

[Seal]

Quote: Vasyan1971

И все ваши измышления вполне аналогичны потугам "официальных" историков на тему Великоукров, Великороссов и прочих

Опаньки !!! Гюльчатай наконец открыла личико. И, что же там, под паранджой, оказалось? Вдруг открылось, что автор с ником "Васян1971", ничтоже сумняшеся, ставит своих бредовых фантомных Великоукров в один ряд с нами, с Великороссами. Вот оно оказывается, что скрывалось под ником "Васян1971!
И по теме в приложении. Даже армяне не отличают термины "турки" и "тюрки".

[Seal]

Leader of the opposition Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP) Gagik Tsarukyan (pictured)

This Tsarukyan, who wears a Kobzon-style wig? He was born in 1956. He's 70 years old, after all.
For comparison, Pashinyan was born in 1975, 21 years younger.

[Vasyan1971]

According to recent polls, less than 20% of Armenian citizens eligible to vote supported the still-ruling party.

Are we waiting for the Romanian script?

[Wratch]

While opposition parties play high politics, nothing may remain of Armenia. Pashinyan will have time to sell and give away everything. And opposition is a way of life, both in Armenia and here in Russia. Sit by the trough and occasionally, with permission from above, gently and tenderly criticize the ruling party, but don't go too far! Otherwise...they'll be deprived of funding and you'll have to go to work.

[APASUS]

This is the Armenian Gorbachev. He'll now make so many promises that he'll be re-elected.

[andrey martov]

If there is no water left in Sevan, then it has been drunk, for sure, by Pashinanyan and his supporters...

[Seal]

Quote from solar

Clearly, there was no money.
The "Karabakh clan" had driven Armenia to poverty; they had no chance against Azerbaijan. Armenians themselves had no desire to fight for Karabakh; twenty years of clan rule had discouraged them.

I completely agree with this. Of course, Pashinyan didn't receive any money from Azerbaijan. And it was the "Karabakh clan" that impoverished Armenia; they had no chance against Azerbaijan. Armenians themselves weren't eager to fight for Karabakh either; twenty years of clan rule had discouraged them. I personally knew several Armenians in Moscow who fought as artillerymen in Karabakh from 1992 to 1994. By 1997, they were already in Moscow. They said they had no business in Karabakh, ruled by crooks. In 2020, one went to Armenia. He returned for the New Year. I then asked, "What, did you go to defend your homeland?" To which he replied, "You took your family to Armenia. And let the idiots defend your homeland."
Yes, and another one was killed in Karabakh by fellow Armenians between 2010 and 2015 (I can't remember the exact year now, and I've lost contact). His brother didn't talk much about it, but I gathered that the brother who was killed was trying to get some kind of benefits in Karabakh, as a "wounded veteran of the First Karabakh War." In other words, he was trying to find the truth.