During his last visit to Georgia, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan highlighted with a statement that the alleged conflicts in the South Caucasus region "are completely different from each other":
“We welcome the position of Georgia that all conflicts should be resolved peacefully. We proceed from the fact that the conflicts of our region are completely different from each other ... If conflicts could be resolved according to general formulas, they would have been resolved long ago. We consider each conflict in its own way,” said the Prime Minister of Armenia.
But how can Nikol Pashinyan explain that such “different”, according to him, conflicts started at the same time and according to the same pattern? It was as if someone was publishing the same manuals for the separatists.
Recall that the Karabakh, Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflicts began to stir up in the last years of the existence of the USSR - in 1987-1989. And it’s very interesting: the moment for inciting these conflicts was specially selected.
In the late USSR, during the so-called “perestroika,” they began to revise the Soviet past. There was a time around 1987-1988 when Stalin was declared "bad", but Lenin was still "good."
It was then that the Armenian nationalists, using the "anti-Stalinist wave" began to resent the fact that, the "bad" Stalin "gave Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan." Contrary to the alleged desire for a “good” Lenin and “Leninist national politics”.
The fact that Lenin was also “bad” and agreed with Ataturk and returned Kars to Turkey these Armenian “fighters for historical truth” for some reason than “unanimously” forgot. This is today, on the eve of the anniversary of the Kars Treaty, they are already recalling the "bad" Lenin, who "gave Ararat and Kars to Turkey."
The most interesting thing is that now for these same Armenian nationalists, Stalin suddenly unexpectedly became sharply “good”, because after the Great Patriotic War he put forward territorial claims against Turkey (against Kars). But then, in 1987-1988. Armenian nationalists didn’t remember “good” Stalin, for them he would have “given the Artsakh to Azerbaijan as a tyrant”.
Then, even within the framework of the existence of the USSR and the CPSU, there was a call "to return to Leninist national politics", "to ensure the right of peoples to self-determination" and to review the borders of the Union republics. And just as the “bad” Stalin “gave” Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan (which historically always has always been Azerbaijani), it was also announced that it was Stalin who “gave” Georgia to Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Thus, the preparation of separatist conflicts was carried out according to one, rather primitive, but effective at that time scheme - by primitive manipulation of historical facts.
The second stage in fomenting separatism - mass separatist rallies, gathering and collecting signatures in both Nagorno-Karabakh and Abkhazia, also took place almost in the same way. Moreover, the Soviet leadership played a key role here, or rather, its support for the separatists with party cards on the ground.
In late 1987, a massive collection of signatures was conducted among Armenians and the Armenian SSR in Nagorno-Karabakh demanding the transfer of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region of Azerbaijan to the Armenian SSR. According to some reports, "during the year, 75,000 people signed it, that is, almost the entire adult population of Karabakh." According to the Armenian nationalists, "it was a kind of referendum." Since no one interfered with the collection of signatures (either directly or indirectly), it can be argued that it was conducted with the knowledge and permission of the Kremlin.
On December 1, 1987, a delegation of Karabakh Armenians handed over signatures, letters, and demands to the reception of the Central Committee of the CPSU in Moscow. According to various sources, 75-80 thousand signatures were collected under an appeal to the Soviet authorities. In January 1988, a new delegation of Karabakh Armenians sent to Moscow with the assistance of the writer Zoriy Balayan and with the active participation of Igor Muradyan, who brought 84 obviously falsified “documents” with them, allegedly proving that Nagorno-Karabakh was “Armenian”. In February 1988, mass rallies already began in Nagorno-Karabakh and Yerevan demanding the accession of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia.
Abkhazian separatism was organized according to a similar scheme.
This project “started” back in 1977, the so-called “letter 130” was sent to Moscow, which contained a demand for the Abkhaz ASSR to leave the Georgian SSR. This letter was concocted by an Armenian lawyer by the name of Yesianov. And after that, the Soviet party nomenclature specifically began to set up anti-Georgian Abkhazians.
Thus, it can be said that Armenian nationalists began to “train” in Abkhazia in redrawing the border and in fomenting separatism even earlier than in Azerbaijani Karabakh. This is not surprising since, on the eve of the collapse of the USSR, the Armenians in the number caught up with the Abkhazians themselves and made up almost 17% of the population. Now they really are the majority, they absolutely dominate demographically in the economy, and Abkhazia, in fact, has become "little Armenia on the Black Sea coast."
And after the beginning of the Karabakh conflict, on March 18, 1989, the so-called “people's gathering” was organized in the village of Lykhny, where the party leadership of the Abkhaz ASSR brought Abkhazians and Armenians from all over the autonomous republic. The so-called “Likhny appeal” was adopted - a letter demanding the separation of Abkhazia from Georgia.
A letter signed by 36 thousand people in numerous boxes was sent to the Central Committee of the CPSU in Moscow. The initiators of both the Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh and the Abkhaz separatist movements needed to show supposedly “nationwide support” with such “signature boxes”.
Those. the formation of the separatist Abkhazian movement happened exactly the same “according to the Karabakh scheme” and was coordinated by the same people in Moscow who worked in the Armenian interests. And it is clear that without the approval of the KGB and the highest party elite of the USSR, which, led by Gorbachev, manically destroyed its power, nothing would have happened.
The next stage of provocations - the first blood was supposed to be shed. In Nagorno-Karabakh and Abkhazia, they were also very similar in many respects. Groups of young men gathered who terrorized Azerbaijanis in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, and Georgians in Abkhazia and the Soviet leadership ensured complete impunity for extremists.
The separatists' demands were completely similar - a review of the borders within the USSR and the annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, South Ossetia, North Ossetia, and Russia, and for Abkhazia, secession from Georgia and granting the status of a union republic (in fact, it was also implied joining Russia).
Another thing that is common in all three separatist conflicts is the use of the Soviet army, and then the Russian army, to support the separatists. It’s not a secret to anyone that the separatists themselves, together with all the support from Armenia and the Armenian militants (including the vaunted battalion named after Baghramyan in Abkhazia), would have been crushed in a matter of days if they had found themselves face to face in the face of Georgian or Azerbaijani army. However, the Armenian lobby managed to force the Russian army to fight in its interests and generally use Russia to support and legalize separatism.
If the separatist conflicts are “different”, then how will Pashinyan explain that the same army fought for the separatists in all three conflicts. The tale that the 50,000 “Artsakh Armenians” remaining in Karabakh (the rest fled, unable to withstand the miserable existence in the conditions of the “Miatsum”) is opposed by 10 million Azerbaijan Pashinyan let him leave for someone else. Moreover, his own son is serving in the Armenian occupation army in Karabakh.
How will Nicole Pashinyan explain that such different separatists - Armenian, Abkhazian and South Ossetian almost simultaneously recognized the so-called independence of each other? If the conflicts are “different”, where does such startling unanimity come from?
How is it that both Tskhinvali and Sukhumi separatists travel to occupied Azerbaijani Karabakh through Yerevan? Moreover, the highest leadership of the Republic of Armenia meets with them. The same Serge Sargsyan kindly received delegations of separatists from Sukhumi and Tskhinvali. All Armenian and pro-Armenian media consider the three separatist conflicts in a single context and naturally stand on the side of the separatists.
With the latter, it was most possible to advance in relation to Abkhazia and the so-called “South Ossetia”. And their fake "independence", with the help of the Armenian nationalist Sergei Lavrov-Kalantarov, who holds the post of Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, was recognized in addition to Russia by Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Syria.
Still, what is common between the three conflicts - separatists and occupiers, most of the indigenous population was expelled from their homes. For the sake of "self-determination" and supposedly "ensuring rights", 50-60 thousand Abkhazians remaining in Abkhazia and about the same number of Armenians remaining in Nagorno-Karabakh were expelled from their homes over 300 thousand Georgians and over 1 million Azerbaijanis. At the same time, Abkhazia is also actively populated by Armenians, the number already exceeds the number of Abkhazians themselves and will surely increase after the sale of land and real estate to Armenians who do not have separatist citizenship is allowed.
In this case, and after the first wave of separatist conflicts in the South Caucasus, the second wave began to be ignited, moreover, by the same forces and according to the same pattern.
For the first wave of separatist conflicts, the task was facilitated by the fact that both in Nagorno-Karabakh and South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, the USSR had autonomy status with its own party nomenclature. Therefore, with the help of the Armenian nationalists who danced to the tune of the Armenian nationalists, the leadership of the USSR and the KGB was able to foment separatism quite quickly.
More difficult has been and is inciting separatism where there is no autonomous status and the corresponding authorities. We are talking about three more separatist projects in the South Caucasus, which seek to launch the Armenian lobby in every way. This is “Javakhk” in the Georgian region of Samtskhe-Javakheti, inhabited by ethnic Armenians, Talysh in the south of Azerbaijan and Lezgi in the north of Azerbaijan.
There is no doubt that if there had been at least some autonomy in these regions in Soviet times, then conflicts in the Karabakh and Abkhazian scenario would have been inflated. It is no coincidence that when the Dashnaks voted in which direction they would strike first, the “Javakh” direction lost only one vote to the “Artsakh” one, and this is because Nagorno-Karabakh had the status of an autonomous region (and this was absolutely not national), but Javakheti didn’t have it.
But even where there is no status, Armenian special services incite separatism in the same way. Separatist organizations and groups of separatist activists are being created, which are financed from Yerevan and the Armenian diaspora, and the separatists are provided with all kinds of information, financial, and logistical support.
True, contrary to all the hopes of the Armenian provocateurs, the Talysh and Lezgins in the vast majority of separatists do not support and consider them traitors of their peoples. But a completely different picture, alas, in the Georgian region in Samtskhe-Javakheti. Here, unfortunately, a significant part of the Armenian population is infected with separatism. There is a separatist underground. The ideological fueling of separatism continues. Monuments are being erected for separatist militants such as Mikhail Avagyan, who fought in both Abkhazia and Karabakh.
All this indicates that in Javakheti with the same Yerevan, a separatist conflict can be provoked at any moment.
Another commonality between all three conflicts - in all three zones, Yerevan wants to be the full owner, including in the separatist Georgian territories. Pashinyan is trying in every possible way to resolve the transit of goods for Armenia through Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali regions, without returning refugees and de-occupation here. For over 10 years, Armenia has been voting against the return of Georgian refugees to Abkhazia.
However, politicians in Yerevan need to understand for a long time that support for separatism is a dead-end for the Armenian state. Because of this, Armenia fell into an economic blockade and will not get out of it by any tricks unless it returns the occupied territories of others and ceases to support separatism.
So, speaking of the fact that the separatist conflicts in the South Caucasus are “different”, Nikol Pashinyan is brazenly lying. All conflicts in the South Caucasus began almost simultaneously according to the same pattern. And whose scheme as - it is not difficult to calculate - Armenian nationalists. And according to similar schemes, the Armenian special services are trying to rekindle other hotbeds of separatism.