Armenian leaders' obsession with livestock overshadows growing war preparations Hidden "shepherds" push for conflict

There is some interesting news from Armenia. During a discussion on the livestock development programme at a government meeting, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan suggested an alternative approach. He proposed that rather than subsidizing half the price of cattle, the government should purchase the necessary type of livestock and supply it to farmers at half price.

"Where will the state keep this livestock? Half of it will die. This means the government would need to manage livestock for at least a week. Who would do that? The Foreign Ministry should deal with its own affairs," Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said in response.

Notably, during the same government meeting, Pashinyan took the opportunity to showcase his extensive knowledge related to sheep.

He stated that sheep farming is profitable, but studies show that people are still importing sheep.

"I visited a village where everyone acknowledged that lamb export is one of the most lucrative sectors. When I tried to understand why the livestock was not increasing, they said there is a problem with shepherds. We can't find anyone to tend the flocks," he remarked.

It seems that demonstrating deep knowledge of sheep farming and shepherding is the prerogative of Pashinyan, who is responsible for Armenia's foreign policy, rather than Ararat Mirzoyan, the foreign minister tasked with implementing that policy. This is a curious example of Armenian "logic" which has unfortunately made Ararat Mirzoyan its victim.

By the way, this is not the first time he has found himself in such a position. After Armenia's defeat in the 44-day second Karabakh war and the signing of the trilateral statement by Pashinyan on November 10, 2020, citizens from the neighbouring country wandered the streets of Yerevan, searching for the hero of the "kebab revolution" and showing deep outrage towards him.

At that time, Pashinyan fully showcased his "strategic talent" as a war leader by retreating to a safe location. However, Mirzoyan was severely critisised. Whether Pashinyan later told him, "I should have been in your place," remains unknown. It is also unclear whether Mirzoyan was appointed foreign minister in recognition of his courageous endurance during that period.

It is evident that Pashinyan is highly protective of Mirzoyan's attempts to delve into issues related to livestock farming. There are indeed many "shepherds" in Armenia ready to guide the public in the direction they want. However, the country's population continues to decrease each year, despite Armenia’s shift in policy from Russian to French guidelines.

However, these Armenian realities are unlikely to be openly acknowledged by either Pashinyan or Mirzoyan. Pashinyan, in particular, has always been adept at contradicting himself. He declared in Khankendi that "Karabakh is Armenia and period". Later, he had to acknowledge Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, including the Karabakh economic region.

Pashinyan himself may be confused about when to act as a "dove of peace" and when to play the "hawk of war." On one hand, he vigorously advocates for the importance of a new Armenian Constitution; on the other, he refuses to remove references to the Declaration of Independence from the Armenian Constitution. This Declaration poses a clear territorial threat to Azerbaijan, as it mentions the unification of the so-called "Nagorno-Karabakh" with Armenia.

Moreover, we have recently observed that Yerevan, which used to frequently emphasise the importance of peace, is now actively buying weapons and preparing for a new conflict. Those encouraging Armenia led by Pashinyan towards war can be considered the new "shepherds" of the neighbouring country. Pashinyan and Mirzoyan are certainly silent about the role they envision for the Armenian military. However, the situation is clear even without their acknowledgement.

By Akbar Hasanov