Biden writes to Aliyev, while Tracy bribes Yerevan Is the game going on?

Ambassadors are serious people. An accidental person cannot become one. Even if a drunk ambassador of some state breaks his arm, people should think: "Did he make it purposefully?" Let us also ponder why US Ambassador to Armenia Lynn Tracy needed to make yet another irritating statement to Azerbaijan.

Answering journalists on May 20, she once again raised the issue of Karabakh.

"In your interview to [Armenian news agency] Armenpress you noted that the US recognizes the role of Nagorno-Karabakh population in determining its future. How do you think this role should be expressed?" she was asked by Armenian journalists.

"I think it is important to emphasize this principle at this point. I don't want to make assumptions about how this will look in the future. That has to be decided in further negotiations between the people of Nagorno-Karabakh and the other parties," Tracy replied.

Well, to begin with, there is no administrative and territorial unit called "Nagorno-Karabakh" in Azerbaijan. Nor are there any people of Nagorno-Karabakh. Unless the ambassador uses the term to define the totality of the Azerbaijani and Armenian population of the former NKAO [Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region]? Well, we don't agree here, because in this case, we have the right to remember the "people of Zangazur" who lived in Armenia till 1987. And remembering, voicing and establishing the "government of Zangazur in exile", let's admire the composition and soul rejoice. The fact that Mrs Ambassador doesn't want to make assumptions about what it will look like in the future is right. Because everything is already decided, the future is here and there will simply be no negotiations between the "people of Nagorno-Karabakh" and the "other parties".

There is something else interesting here. Just yesterday [May 20], US President Joe Biden sent a congratulatory message to Azerbaijani leader Ilham Aliyev on the occasion of Independence Day, in which he expressed his support for Azerbaijan's independence and sovereignty. And why does the ambassador diverge from the general line of the party? There may be several reasons. "Ambassadors almost never make mistakes" - this version is rejected at once. For making a mistake, an ambassador, a high-ranking representative, risks going to the periphery, to an urban-type settlement, to run a house of culture. It may be an expression of the USA's dissatisfaction with the fact that the talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia are held in Brussels again and not in Key West, i.e. the EU is involved, and the USA is sidelined. It may be an element of pressure on Azerbaijan (no one knows what they will demand from us, time will tell, maybe something against Iran or Russia, God knows), or maybe it's just an overture towards Armenia, the Americans can be polite when they consider it expedient. For example, with a view to pushing Russia out of Armenia. I don't have a clue how their games will end up there, but rightly so, I will laugh for a long time when Armenia finally decides to "screw" Russia.

What about ambassadors? It's their job; sometimes they want to please those in whose country they represent their state. Even so, it would be more appropriate for Ms Tracy to make it clear to those she wants to butter up that it's time for them to admit their defeat unconditionally, that the country where she lives has no chance to oppose Azerbaijan at all. But first, Tracy should realize it herself. As well as the fact that she is the US ambassador to Armenia and not vice versa. And if she hasn't done it so far, we will take it upon ourselves to advise Armenians in a neighbourly way: stop being foolish and provocative, and we will assert our national interests firmly, as the winner party, without yielding to anyone. We simply have no other choice.