Finally Khosrov Harutyunyan submitted the role, which many people were avoiding. Of course, quite cautiously and with possibly mild formulations he had stated that during his speech Levon Ter-Petrosyan has delivered a “message” to international organizations in order to receive support from them. This smells like “color revolutions.” As a ground for the mentioned statement he emphasized the fact that the international structures first of all demand from Armenia to settle Karabagh conflict and fight against corruption. And Levon Ter-Petrosyan focused his speech on the two mentioned points. In fact Ter-Petrosyan would hardly set his number one priority the support from abroad. If he had his consent about the foreign support he wouldn’t have resigned in 1998. But the point is how the people of Armenia comprehend the “international organizations”. It turns out that these organizations are shamelessly demand that the government of Armenia should fight against corruption and regulate NKR conflict. But the government in its turn neither fights against corruption nor settles the conflict. Or perhaps the government does but not in the manner the international organizations wish. Try to understand. Let’s suppose this is how the government of Armenia is solving the NKR conflict: they try to prolong the process of negotiations, maintain the status quo till the world would get used to the current facts. It’s a good option but don’t know why the international community doesn’t like it. If they liked it they would demand that Armenia solve the conflict every other day. So what do we have? It turns out that our opponent in NKR resolution is not Azerbaijan but the international community. Or does our government not fight corruption? Of course it does day and night. But no one knows why the international community doesn’t notice this fight and deliberately states that the level of corruption in Armenia doesn’t reduce. This means that the international organizations mean one thing by saying “fight against corruption” and Armenia means another thing. It’s interesting to know which of the sides the society sympathizes. Does the society find the fight against corruption productive? And if some day the society rebels against the government (for wide-spread price increase) will it be fair to call it a “color revolution” organized from abroad. Now let’s speak about the big bluff that the international community really cares that Armenia becomes a democratic country and corruption is demolished. In fact the external world doesn’t care about that. That’s why no matter how elections are held in this country the international community is going to call those a “step forward” and the money flowing from the Millennium Challenges Corporation won’t stop. The West organizes color revolution for only one reason, that is abolish the control of Russia over countries. Later Russia undertakes certain steps to punish the country (the examples in Ukraine and Georgia). Russia and the West unite their efforts on behalf of a country only when it decides to make its own decisions and implement policies for the sake of the country. What I am trying to say is that the “color revolution” is as negative as fighting against it with the Russian “patronage” because it is only a fight of the slave for changing the master. Every master would like that there was no democracy development, corruption fight, and normal relations with the neighbors. Only we can benefit from that. There are always going to be the ones to hinder the process.
