A lot of developments in Armenia are viewed in the context of struggle between the West and Russia. This was fostered by the parliamentary election on which the West focused as never before.
Most social and political circles understand this as an election quality control statement or, to put it otherwise, if the election is rigged, the West will announce about it.
It was certainly a misunderstanding, and the assurances and warnings of the West concern the content of the election, not election fraud, that is the correspondence of the election to the Western geopolitical interests and the Russian interests.
In this sense, the main focus is on the post-election situation, and the West has one demand from the Armenian government – prevent post-election unrest. This demand does not proceed from humanism, of course. It does not mean that the West does not proceed from humanism. Simply the Western community knows that any crisis in Armenia ends in favor of Russia.
At the same time, any crisis ends with the defeat of the Armenian government. In other words, Russia benefits from unrest or crisis while the government is affected or loses. It seems that the government also benefits, which overcomes crises and unrest with the help of Russia and thus holds on to power.
This is the appearance. In reality, Russia keeps the government in Armenia but whoever is government of Armenia, is target of greater social dissatisfaction. For years this deeper aspect was not visible to the government of Armenia but March 1 was the tragic culmination after which the government understood that the operation of this mechanism can be dangerous while Russia controls and rules Armenia through small and big crises and unrests.
In this sense, after 1 March 2008, the shift of the vector of the Armenian government to the West which was noticed by almost all the observers of the political and social life and even abroad was perhaps quite natural and logical and was mostly determined by the awareness of the undesired prospects of this dangerous mechanism.
From 2008 different U.S. diplomats announced that Serzh Sargsyan is the president they need. These statements were hardly diplomatic or courtesy gestures in the framework of development of the U.S.-Armenian relationship. Serzh Sargsyan was the right president because Serzh Sargsyan was carrying the weight of the mechanism operating earlier, he had experienced after March 1 how tougher and tougher it was going to be for the government of Armenia to support the crisis-based policy of Russia.
In this situation there was nothing else Serzh Sargsyan could do but to resign and avoid crisis or unrest or gradually adhere to the Western civilization to neutralize this danger and at least try to balance the Russian dominance with the view to freeing the country from the Russian dominance.
The point is that Serzh Sargsyan was aware of the advantages of the Western civilization. Perhaps he is, maybe he isn’t. The problem is clear. Serzh Sargsyan is aware of the dangers to the government when the state remains in Russia’s zone of “crisis management”. Serzh Sargsyan is saving his power. Unfortunately, a situation has occurred when not fully, of course, not even in half, the interests of the nation and the government overlap, which is a chance for attainments by the nation.
Comments