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:
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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.