Whatever people argue about in Armenia, it eventually brings to opposition of “pro-Russians” and “pro-Westerns”. To be honest, I have never considered myself to be in one of these camps. By the way, I also do not like the proud statements our politicians make, “I’m pro-Armenian”. If you are a citizen of the Republic of Armenia, it is clear that you have to act in the interests of that state, and mentioning about it unnecessarily gives rise to suspicions: perhaps it could also be any other way, couldn’t it?
I respect all peoples and all cultures, and being “pro” to any of them seems to be a fake agenda. We might like or dislike the current policy of the government of this or that country, but “reign of any king” is a temporary phenomenon, it is instantaneous from the standpoint of history. If Putin or Tramp, in my opinion, conduct a wrong policy today, it does not mean that my views are anti-Russian or anti-American. I do not want to link the fate of my country and my state with any other state or “king”, in the 21st century, this political “ideology” seems to be more childish and irrelevant.
The discussion of the law on domestic violence is also in the “pro-Russian-pro-Western” dimension. That is, it is not about how much benefit or harm the adoption of this law will bring, but rather to which geopolitical camp the proponents and opponents of the law belong. Some complain about the intrigues of “Putin’s Russia” or “the mass won over” to the Russian side in the Russian Embassy in Armenia, the others about the “Western compulsion”, the “perversion of Gayrope”, etc. It is impossible to convince both sides that they are wrong, and that it is necessary to discuss the draft law and not those who support or criticise it.
I think, if someone has a “rabis” personality, and is ignorant, if he thinks that beating is a necessity in the “arsenal” of communication with women and children, then Putin or Krivopuskov are not to blame. And vice versa, if a person believes that the victims of domestic violence need additional opportunity to be protected, to speak out about the crime committed against them, Tramp and Macron had no role in the formation of that conviction. One might be head over heels in love with Putin and be against the glorification of violence in the family. One can consider the United States the embodiment of paradise on Earth, and be the advocate of the most “abominable” morals in the family.
… Levon Igityan is unable to properly communicate with women, not because he is a fan of Putin.