2020年12月3日11:08

The search for 叛徒s leaves no room for real accountability

帕特里克·阿扎迪安

在亚美尼亚,有两套流行的阴谋论正在流行,涉及最近的战争和阿尔萨克(Artsakh)的领土丧失。自然,没有任何疑问可以证明或证明这一点,但值得一提,因为它们阐明了亚美尼亚目前的情绪。两种理论都基于存在‘traitor’ or ‘traitors,’并采用简单的线性逻辑他们还保持普通市民的思想,使民众感到无助。

阴谋论1–Pashinyan一直计划

该理论的最极端的版本,也许是更简单的观点,声称尼古拉·帕辛扬一直计划移交给阿尔萨克’领土进入阿塞拜疆,革命是这一宏伟计划的一部分。因此,他是叛徒。这种阴谋论的观点略有不同,而且头脑简单,声称由于帕欣延是一个亲西方的人,他愿意消灭亚美尼亚。’与俄罗斯的战略关系,而不必担心阿尔萨克领土的丧失。而且,失去领土的是俄罗斯’惩罚亚美尼亚摆脱势力范围的方法。这个理论 ’支持者不断提醒我们,他们在战争前警告即将发生的灾难,以进一步证明自己的观点。他们还喜欢指出由于与俄罗斯的冲突而在乌克兰和格鲁吉亚丧失领土的例子。无论他们的思想是掌上阅读的政治版本的产物,还是阴谋论2的延伸(即将出版),我们’永远不会知道。这种理论受到反对派一些成员和一些自称为政治专家的青睐。

该理论存在一些漏洞,如下所示:

如果事实上Pashinyan打算牺牲Artakh与西方结盟,那为什么’反对派的某些分子采取了更严厉的行动来防止即将来临的灾难?
There is something more dangerous than a 叛徒, and that is someone who is incompetent, a reckless egomaniac and addicted to populism. This is a combination that can be disastrous for any nation, 让 alone a nation that is at war. This is an option that is excluded in the above theory.

俄罗斯为什么只因为一个人就惩罚亚美尼亚?俄国’普京总统不是一个反复无常的孩子。如果俄罗斯’利益意味着要保持阿尔萨克全职为亚美尼亚人,因此在亚美尼亚的领导层换届就此无关紧要。对于任何一个区域超级大国而言,控制小国领导人的方式都比放火烧房屋更容易。

自革命以来,帕欣延一直没有进行任何有意义的亲西方扩张。与加拿大的可爱袜子外交’总理,与法国总统马克龙的到处拥抱,对西方公司拥有的Amulsar采矿项目的某种支持立场,以及对格鲁吉亚的象征性访问,他的政府几乎没有表现出什么来如果他们真的是亲西方的。

如果Pashinyan早已下定决心要这样做,那么他是否必须经历这种流血和痛苦的锻炼才能移交领土?战场上的重大失败会对任何领导人造成不可预测的后果,这是不值得承担的风险。

无论Pashinyan’根据个人喜好,当阿尔萨克的领土被割让给阿塞拜疆时,亚美尼亚仍完全处于俄罗斯势力范围内。

阴谋论2–革命前的领导人是真正的叛徒

The most complicated version of this theory claims that the pre-revolution leadership knew the war was coming, and that Armenia was disadvantaged. Therefore, they 让 the revolution happen so that when Armenia lost the war, Pashinyan would automatically take the blame. According to this theory, the 老警卫 knew they were going to be forced to give up territory. Therefore, they allowed Pashinyan to take the blame and planned for a soft counter-revolution afterward. A milder version of this theory claims that the revolution was inevitable. Once it had happened, the 老警卫 planned a sit-and-wait strategy peppered with occasional cautionary notes on the dangers of erosion of our strategic relationship with Russia. As war and the loss of territories became reality, they saw an opportunity to dethrone Pashinyan and install their own (and Russia’s) man. This theory is most popular among the average citizens in Armenia, and while many citizens hold Pashinyan responsible for his mistakes and miscalculations before and after the war, as well as the number of deaths on the battlefield, they overestimate the role of the 老警卫 in the latest defeat. This is probably what can explain the lack of enthusiasm among Armenia’支持反对派的民众集会,要求Pashinyan辞职(另一种选择是,人们只是对战争,革命,动荡和无能的领导人感到厌倦)。

这个理论也有一些漏洞。

1. Why would the 老警卫 take a chance on relinquishing power to Pashinyan in the first place? If Pashinyan had moved swiftly, many of the 老警卫 members would have been in prison by now. There was no guarantee Pashinyan was going to make mistakes.

2. Did the 老警卫 think the people of Armenia would forgive them for their mistakes? They still haven’t.

3. The 老警卫 is not homogenous, and therefore such a sophisticated scheme on a grand scale may not be plausible.

4. The theory assumes that all members of the 老警卫 (with some having connections and business ventures in Artsakh) and their associates were willing to lose Artsakh just to take revenge on Pashinyan. This is an unlikely scenario.

5.战后,俄罗斯正式支持Pashinyan。

In one conspiracy theory, Pashinyan is the only figure at fault for conceding territory, and in the other, it is mainly the 老警卫 who are seen as the agents of defeat. Both viewpoints have a villain or a group of villains, and they are presented as mutually exclusive scenarios. The first theory completely relieves the pre-revolution leadership of responsibility for the situation that lead to the war and losses on the battlefield, and the second, gives Pashinyan a pass on one of the most tragic capitulations in Armenian history.

讨论中经常缺少的是对失败原因的诚实的​​自我反省,以及对我们作为一个国家的增长的机会和领域的重新评估。如果要继续存在一个独立的亚美尼亚和一个亚美尼亚Artsakh,我们的驻外机构也必须自我反思并调整其优先事项。我们的民族话语需要从‘命名您最喜欢的叛徒’ to ‘let’我们认真考虑建立一个可持续的亚美尼亚国家。’但是,只要负责的现任政府(不一定在战争期间完全负责投降)就可以进行真诚的对话。他们表明,他们有能力歪曲事实并向公众撒谎,以使故事情节受益,从而减轻了他们的责任感。他们现在是一个有偏见的政党,在领导这一进程方面存在利益冲突。如果这种对话意识到只有老兵来推进问责制的过程,那么在公众眼中也将是有缺陷的。具有讽刺意味的是,公众的持续消极将使问责制的要求掌握在人民手中。‘old guard’独自或最终将减轻当前的责任管理。没有公众的积极参与,就不可能有应对失败的责任和未来路线图的体制进程。参与共谋理论只会使人民两极分化,最终使领导人避免承担责任。无论发生什么情况,我们都无法继续寻找替罪羊,并花费与过去一样多的不合格时间。未来在呼唤,它不一定是令人沮丧的。

* տեսակետներինտեսակետներինտեսակետներինտեսակետներինտեսակետներինտեսակետներին: