The famous paradox of Zeno states that because a thing must travel half the distance before arriving at its end point, and then cover half the remaining distance, and again half that distance, and half again and again, etc., it can never complete the course from point A to point B, making all motion impossible. In modern times, Hilbert’s Paradox brings out counterintuitive properties of infinity by proposing an infinite hotel whose rooms are all occupied, but which can always accommodate an infinite number of new guests.
Now, alongside Hilbert and Zeno, we have Pashinyan’s Paradox. Developed by Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Vovayevich Pashinyan, the Pashinyan Paradox states that an action an individual absolutely denies committing, and even imputes to their enemies, could, at the same time, be a good thing whose benefits the individual takes full credit for.
The Pashinyan Paradox and its premises break down as follows:
Premise 1: Nikol Vovayevich Pashinyan fought hard to keep Artsakh part of Armenia.
Premise 2: The people of Artsakh did not fight hard for Artsakh, rather abandoned, fled from, and, finally, signed it over to Azerbaijan with the help of Russia.
(Corollary to Premise 2: Had they fought seriously, they would have died. Because they did not all die, they did not fight seriously.)
Premise 3: Russia betrayed Armenia by doing so and is ultimately at fault for handing over Artsakh to Azerbaijan.
Premise 4: Losing Artsakh was a good thing that has made Armenia stable, strong and sovereign.[1]
These four premises then lead to the conclusion: Russia is a bad, unreliable partner and Pashinyan saved Armenia, made it more prosperous and sovereign.
However, by the rules of standard logic, the conclusion does not follow from the four premises. If losing Artsakh was a good thing (P4) and Russia was responsible for losing it (P3), then it is Russia that has benefitted Armenia, not Pashinyan.
According to P1, Pashinyan fought strenuously to keep it and, in P2, the people of Artsakh did not. Since, in P4, losing Artsakh was a good thing, responsible for this good thing was Russia and Russian-aligned Artsakh leaders in P3.
In fact, according to P1, Pashinyan hurt Armenia’s sovereignty by fighting so vigorously to keep Artsakh as the irrevocable part of Armenia, and especially for not being the one who gave Artsakh away. Rather, according to Pashinyan and his followers, it would be Samvel Shahramanyan who officially dissolved the Republic of Artsakh in 2023 who is the savior of Armenia, bestowed true and proper statehood upon it, making it more sovereign than ever.
Even though Pashinyan officially recognized Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan in 2022, a year before Shahramanyan’s dissolution, Pashinyan’s self-proclaimed success can only be an ex post facto acceptance of the loss of Artsakh which, according to him, Russia is actually responsible for.
Moreover, the neglect of Pashinyan’s predecessors for 30 years, if P4 is true, would have been a salutary neglect that has had the effect of strengthening Armenian statehood. On the contrary, 30 years of tireless preparation, construction, effective diplomacy, and international legitimacy by the hated “Karabagh Clan” would have been a bad thing because it would have led to retaining Artsakh to the present day and the continued (as Pashinyan would now say) crippling of Armenian statehood.
How is it possible to impute an action to your opponents and condemn them for it, yet, at the same time, claim that the action in question was a good one that has bestowed many benefits, and then take credit for the benefits one says resulted from said action which one categorically denies committing?
More paralyzing than Zeno’s paradox and more puzzling than Hilbert’s, a politician claims to have saved a country through an act he himself vehemently denies doing.
A mind-bending paradox worthy of Hilbert or Zeno!
Footnotes:
[1] See for example, “Pashinyan’s Sovereignty Illusion: Losing Karabakh, Finding Armenia?” and “Pashinyan Says Loss of Artsakh Benefited Armenia”
