Tweet
Survived Corn, Will Survive Eurasia
Igor Muradyan
11:32 15/12/2012
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/28425
Can a small state conduct a multi-vector policy in the modern epoch?
Let's first figure out what a vector is.
A lot of Armenian politicians with education in physics and
mathematics could imagine what a vector is, independent from its
humanitarian or physical interpretation. It is to be understood that a
vector is a pattern of direction, a real or virtual kinetics or
something similar. In any case, a vector is a convenient, analytical
and delicate notion since direction does not presuppose the goal,
especially a goal that has been achieved.
The notion of `orientation' or `bias' is something less delicate and
leaves less freedom but in this case also there are a number of
possibilities for maneuver. Apparently, it is important to understand
when these notions are perceived superficially, especially in
speculative moods.
According to recent rumors in Moscow, there was a banquet during which
someone said that was the `last banquet of the empire' (by the way,
this expression was intended for a young but influential functionary
of the Armenian company).
The overall impression is that the project of the Eurasian Union will
be soft-pedaled since it is better to do it now and forget about it
than launch a failure project. The Moscow-based politicians have
arrived at this sacral point not in the result of Armenia's moderate
position but very specific clarifications by the leaders of Ukraine,
Kazakhstan and Belarus.
In fact, one can survive any project if one is confident about their
positions. Was there a position, is there a position? Most probably,
Armenia has overestimated foreign pressure but fortunately it made it.
The Moscow-based politicians may return to the will of the apostles of
the Eurasian Union in the sense that one should always try to return
to ideas which failed at some moment. Apparently, this is related to
the ancient covenant of the `steppe' though it is hard to tell whether
the modern devotees of the Eurasian idea have read and grasped the
meaning of the testaments of the Great ones.
However, the problem is not the Eurasian project but the precedent of
the pro-Atlantic course of Armenia which is related to personal and
group interests of Armenian politicians but is interpreted as a
vitally important goal of our country. If Moscow bursts into such
unhidden hysteria growing into brazenness, it means there is something
there.
Moscow's last argument is not even screams of some hirelings but an
appeal to public opinion. Look here, they are interested in the
opinion of the Armenian people. No doubt this precedent will not
escape the attention of those in Moscow, and Armenia will not be
considered a reliable partner.
Therefore, one of the foreign political priorities of Armenia will be
identification of the new format of relations with Russia. Over the
past two or three years we have warned about upcoming corrections in
the Russian-Armenian relations when still there were no visible signs.
The main argument for the understanding of this perspective was
Russia's policy which increasingly ignored Armenia's interests up to
unhidden reluctance to recognize the genocide of 1915.
We don't know what signals Russia sent to the international community
relating to the recognition or denial of the genocide but this issue
(of the past) revealed Russia's goals on the region and its relations
with Turkey.
Moscow based experts fully and implicitly approved supplies of weapon
to Azerbaijan joined later by Ukraine and Belarus. Russia tries to
prevent military actions between Azerbaijan and Armenia, limiting
military actions to the area of the Karabakh conflict, certainly
shedding responsibility for the war and its intervention.
Perhaps, this is in the interests of the Yerevan-based bourgeoisie and
observers but not the Armenian people who continue to view Russia as a
partner. Hence, Moscow has isolated not only Karabakh but also
Armenia, committing Armenia to the arena of the next division of
interests between Russia and Turkey.
What awaits us in the West which is more complicated and less reliable
that it may appear but we will have to survive this `corn'. This is a
separate and complicated issue which will be covered in a number of
publications, and a lot of confessions and revelations are expected.
In any case, Armenia is facing the need for a multi-vector policy and
a survey on the premises of such a policy. In anticipation of future
discussions, one may only note that the multi-vector policy of a big
country presupposes a common problem or a common rival of both poles.
Neither Russia, nor its Western rival-partners will be able to escape
this.
Igor Muradyan
11:32 15/12/2012
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/comments/view/28425
Can a small state conduct a multi-vector policy in the modern epoch?
Let's first figure out what a vector is.
A lot of Armenian politicians with education in physics and
mathematics could imagine what a vector is, independent from its
humanitarian or physical interpretation. It is to be understood that a
vector is a pattern of direction, a real or virtual kinetics or
something similar. In any case, a vector is a convenient, analytical
and delicate notion since direction does not presuppose the goal,
especially a goal that has been achieved.
The notion of `orientation' or `bias' is something less delicate and
leaves less freedom but in this case also there are a number of
possibilities for maneuver. Apparently, it is important to understand
when these notions are perceived superficially, especially in
speculative moods.
According to recent rumors in Moscow, there was a banquet during which
someone said that was the `last banquet of the empire' (by the way,
this expression was intended for a young but influential functionary
of the Armenian company).
The overall impression is that the project of the Eurasian Union will
be soft-pedaled since it is better to do it now and forget about it
than launch a failure project. The Moscow-based politicians have
arrived at this sacral point not in the result of Armenia's moderate
position but very specific clarifications by the leaders of Ukraine,
Kazakhstan and Belarus.
In fact, one can survive any project if one is confident about their
positions. Was there a position, is there a position? Most probably,
Armenia has overestimated foreign pressure but fortunately it made it.
The Moscow-based politicians may return to the will of the apostles of
the Eurasian Union in the sense that one should always try to return
to ideas which failed at some moment. Apparently, this is related to
the ancient covenant of the `steppe' though it is hard to tell whether
the modern devotees of the Eurasian idea have read and grasped the
meaning of the testaments of the Great ones.
However, the problem is not the Eurasian project but the precedent of
the pro-Atlantic course of Armenia which is related to personal and
group interests of Armenian politicians but is interpreted as a
vitally important goal of our country. If Moscow bursts into such
unhidden hysteria growing into brazenness, it means there is something
there.
Moscow's last argument is not even screams of some hirelings but an
appeal to public opinion. Look here, they are interested in the
opinion of the Armenian people. No doubt this precedent will not
escape the attention of those in Moscow, and Armenia will not be
considered a reliable partner.
Therefore, one of the foreign political priorities of Armenia will be
identification of the new format of relations with Russia. Over the
past two or three years we have warned about upcoming corrections in
the Russian-Armenian relations when still there were no visible signs.
The main argument for the understanding of this perspective was
Russia's policy which increasingly ignored Armenia's interests up to
unhidden reluctance to recognize the genocide of 1915.
We don't know what signals Russia sent to the international community
relating to the recognition or denial of the genocide but this issue
(of the past) revealed Russia's goals on the region and its relations
with Turkey.
Moscow based experts fully and implicitly approved supplies of weapon
to Azerbaijan joined later by Ukraine and Belarus. Russia tries to
prevent military actions between Azerbaijan and Armenia, limiting
military actions to the area of the Karabakh conflict, certainly
shedding responsibility for the war and its intervention.
Perhaps, this is in the interests of the Yerevan-based bourgeoisie and
observers but not the Armenian people who continue to view Russia as a
partner. Hence, Moscow has isolated not only Karabakh but also
Armenia, committing Armenia to the arena of the next division of
interests between Russia and Turkey.
What awaits us in the West which is more complicated and less reliable
that it may appear but we will have to survive this `corn'. This is a
separate and complicated issue which will be covered in a number of
publications, and a lot of confessions and revelations are expected.
In any case, Armenia is facing the need for a multi-vector policy and
a survey on the premises of such a policy. In anticipation of future
discussions, one may only note that the multi-vector policy of a big
country presupposes a common problem or a common rival of both poles.
Neither Russia, nor its Western rival-partners will be able to escape
this.