03 October 2018

Cold War II: Update from the Armenian Front


They're calling it the Armenian Velvet Revolution. It's velvet because it was soft and non-violent and was (supposedly) in the spirit of the peaceful 1989 uprisings that removed the communists from power in Czechoslovakia.


But what really happened in Armenia in the spring of 2018? By all accounts it's complicated. There are various social forces at work, accusations of corruption and huge economic problems. A lot of Armenians are upset with the direction of their country.
But from the West's standpoint it's very simple. Serzh Sargsyan is out and Nikol Pashinyan is in.
Pashinyan has re-oriented Armenia, away from Russia. He has not moved Armenia radically away but the Sargsyan removal has started a trajectory of breaking the Yerevan-Moscow relationship or at the very least redefining it. Up until now Armenia has remained solidly within the Moscow orbit even as Caucasian neighbours Georgia and Azerbaijan have slipped into the Western fold.
While Georgia is also part of the Eastern Orthodox world, Armenia's situation is different. They have a deep historical grievance with the Turks who now hold the vast majority of their historical lands. The Armenians have long looked to Moscow for aid in their rather difficult neighbourhood. Russia has always been keen to provide assistance. Their reasons are both ideological and strategic, both selfless and selfish. This was especially true in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
It is for these reasons that even after the breakup of the Soviet Union, 'Christian' Armenia did not look to NATO and the West. Apart from Moscow their alliances have been with the Kurds, Iran and one (often dissident) member of NATO viz. Greece. Their mutual hatred of the Turks has made them natural allies.
Even though the US hosts a significant Armenian diaspora which wields a strong financial lobby, Washington has never taken a stand against the Turks and has never officially referred to the 1915 events as a genocide. And thus while Armenia has never been hostile to Washington the friendship has always been limited.
But all of this is changing. The New Cold War is forcing nations to choose and just like in the mid-20th century, domestic politics and upheavals are starting to develop another layer, another geopolitical aspect. This affects not only politics, but economics and even religious hierarchies.
There's little to indicate that Washington is a big fan of Pashinyan but he's useful and thus far there has been tepid support of him. What they really wanted was Sargsyan out and in that sense, it's 'mission accomplished'. Did the US play a part in fomenting the protests that led to the Sargsyan downfall? It's still difficult to prove but there are hints and indications that US money flowed into the protests. One need only look to the usual suspects.
The Soros organisation certainly has a presence in the country and they've played their part elsewhere. And of course there's USAID and the NED which have long track records of funding social unrest and oppositional politics. Some have seen the distant hand of Victoria Nuland or at the very least the same people that were behind her and her actions in Ukraine.
As I said in an earlier post it would be news if the US wasn't funding the protests. They were certainly in Washington's interest.
As a quick aside, Western media portrayed Putin's 2012 and 2015 clampdowns on NGO's as an authoritarian move, and indeed it could very well be. It certainly affected and even harmed a wider sphere of organisations and yet at the same time the move was in reality an attempt to quash Washington's coup machine which was already at work within his borders. The same is true of Viktor Orban and the moves he's made against Soros and other NGO's within Hungary. They know the score and what these organisations do. And yet (thanks to the media) most in the West apparently do not and so the actions seem irrational, petty, arbitrary and tyrannical. One need not agree with the likes of Putin or Orban to understand their moves make perfect sense and are (on one level) prudent.
Pashinyan has broken some of the Sargsyan brokered deals with Moscow and yet (undoubtedly) to Washington's disappointment there's been no talk of removing Russian military bases from Armenian soil. Despite Yerevan's move to the West, there are still viable fears regarding their mortal enemies, Turkey and Azerbaijan. For that reason, Armenia cannot completely divorce itself from Moscow. Only NATO membership would allow for it and yet at this point such a move is virtually unthinkable.
Russia has upset Armenia by exhibiting a certain ambivalence in light of recent Azeri military posturing vis-à-vis Armenia. Baku has made some provocative moves suggesting a possible military invasion. Given that the nations are bitter foes with ongoing territorial disputes, anything is possible. Russia has tried to keep Azerbaijan from completely breaking away and with the Velvet Revolution the game has become more complicated. But the Azeri threats are convenient in one sense, they drive Yerevan back into Moscow's arms. How? Because the Armenians know that NATO won't be coming to the rescue. Moscow is their only hope for peace and security, at least for now.
The story regarding Catholicos Karekin, his resignation and the controversies over a relic just add a layer of fascination to the overall story.
See also:

1 comment:

  1. On your Britain post: you probably know the situation better than many Christians in the UK! The atmosphere in the church, I'd say, is one of low-level fear and indecision, with some turn towards the Dominionist ideals you describe. Unfortunately the term 'Cultural Marxism' is being bandied about by some groups. The dark irony of warning 'the church must take a stand as it failed to do against the Nazis!' when of course the Nazis used the fear of Godless, family-less 'Cultural Bolshevism' to fool the church.

    I was just saying to a Christian friend the other day that I'm having to lower my prediction of the hammer-blow (loss of charitable status, buildings, and jobs; fines and prison) to five years from ten. I find the thought quite exciting on some level, despite the tragedy that will ensue. The church desperately needs a shake-up, even if it thinks it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.