Tweet
LIFEBELT FOR SERZH SARGSYAN
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26298.html
Published: 15:30:05 - 23/05/2012
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.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26298.html
Published: 15:30:05 - 23/05/2012
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.