Tweet
Serzh Sargsyan Left Vilnius Through Back Door
The Eastern Partnership project has a primarily geopolitical
importance, and the ongoing developments are worth scrutiny only in
terms of geopolitics. The project itself was controversial since
France and Germany were not enthusiastic though later Germany changed
its stance, realizing the mostly pro-German bias of the project.
In contrast, the United Kingdom that supported Poland and Sweden in
this project has realized that its implementation requires additional
spending which it has always been against. The new EU-members in
Eastern Europe are not interested in spending more. However, the most
unfavorable factor was the reduced interest in foreign policy by the
United States, including in Eastern Europe.
On the whole, the project was implemented under unfavorable
conditions, and the shortcomings and inadequate schemes of economic
integration would not have been noticed at all had the political
component been more complete.
Russia did not need a thorough plan to thwart the project at this
stage. However, any consideration in the political games with the West
will sooner or later require comparison of effort and resources, as
well as political and ideological issues which are now called value
issues.
Russia's method of political gangsterism stole from the countries of
the region several years of more successful development and put off
global changes in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. At the same time, it is
beyond doubt that Russia has found itself in a more intense
international isolation and blockage which it is trying to avoid
through expansionist methods.
In this situation the countries benefitted which have minimum economic
and political relations with Russia, i.e. Azerbaijan, Georgia and
Moldova. These countries gained the right to distance in their
relations with Russia, and despite a number of social and political
problems they went one step closer to the Western community.
The bid is on Ukraine whose government had domestic and foreign
political resources to be, if not equal, at least an actor in this
game, trying to get maximum use from both Russia and the West, and
Ukraine will achieve it quickly, being in a more favorable position
indeed.
In Armenia it is impossible to prove anything to anyone, and everyone
is right, proceeding from their senses and deeply private interests.
Armenia again demonstrated political dilettantism and inability of the
political elite to build state politics. And now it is time to tell
what one was reluctant to tell during the whole process.
It became clear that the only state that took part in the project but
did not get any closer to the West is Armenia because Ukraine gained
new positions, and the other three countries decided a lot in their
pretensions. During the summit in Vilnius anything and anyone was
discussed except Armenia. Armenia just was not at the summit, it was
not noticed.
Earlier it had been stated that Armenia would be forgotten and
disappear from the international political arena. However, it was also
stated that expectations could have been worse than they are. Now it
means that Armenia is out of the discussion, and the Western community
thinks it is unable to make decisions independently, therefore it had
better remain Russia's vassal.
How would one set up relations with a state that has lost its
sovereignty? It is dangerous and meaningless. Hence, the West left the
game delicately, letting everyone understand that it `respects
Armenia's choice' to remain a vassal. In fact, the West sheds
responsibility for the economic and social development and security of
Armenia, even to the limited extent that was in place so far. The West
hands responsibility for Armenia to the West. It is more convenient.
`They understood everything.'
3-4 years of deception is enough to draw conclusions for a long term.
Hopes to enter through the backdoor next time are naïve and not
political. All kinds of hints that some time later Armenia will be
able to sign some `corrected' document with the European Union are
nonsense.
As a result, plans on geopolitical construction in Eastern Europe will
be corrected, and Armenia is viewed as a territory, not a state.
Armenia may be mentioned but only in two cases: when it will be needed
to put pressure on Russia or when it will be necessary to satisfy
Turkey's and Azerbaijan's ambitions.
In addition, the Armenian society should not be offended by the West
which, by the way, observes ethics. Even if the United States intends
to restore the Armenian sovereignty, proceeding from its own
interests, in a dialogue with the European Union will demand
guarantees of decency which do not exist.
Is everything so sad? No. The Armenian society is quite comfortable
and almost indifferent to the loss of its sovereignty. Now one can
only follow the great developments of the 21st century.
Igor Muradyan
15:51 30/11/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/31426
From: Baghdasarian
The Eastern Partnership project has a primarily geopolitical
importance, and the ongoing developments are worth scrutiny only in
terms of geopolitics. The project itself was controversial since
France and Germany were not enthusiastic though later Germany changed
its stance, realizing the mostly pro-German bias of the project.
In contrast, the United Kingdom that supported Poland and Sweden in
this project has realized that its implementation requires additional
spending which it has always been against. The new EU-members in
Eastern Europe are not interested in spending more. However, the most
unfavorable factor was the reduced interest in foreign policy by the
United States, including in Eastern Europe.
On the whole, the project was implemented under unfavorable
conditions, and the shortcomings and inadequate schemes of economic
integration would not have been noticed at all had the political
component been more complete.
Russia did not need a thorough plan to thwart the project at this
stage. However, any consideration in the political games with the West
will sooner or later require comparison of effort and resources, as
well as political and ideological issues which are now called value
issues.
Russia's method of political gangsterism stole from the countries of
the region several years of more successful development and put off
global changes in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. At the same time, it is
beyond doubt that Russia has found itself in a more intense
international isolation and blockage which it is trying to avoid
through expansionist methods.
In this situation the countries benefitted which have minimum economic
and political relations with Russia, i.e. Azerbaijan, Georgia and
Moldova. These countries gained the right to distance in their
relations with Russia, and despite a number of social and political
problems they went one step closer to the Western community.
The bid is on Ukraine whose government had domestic and foreign
political resources to be, if not equal, at least an actor in this
game, trying to get maximum use from both Russia and the West, and
Ukraine will achieve it quickly, being in a more favorable position
indeed.
In Armenia it is impossible to prove anything to anyone, and everyone
is right, proceeding from their senses and deeply private interests.
Armenia again demonstrated political dilettantism and inability of the
political elite to build state politics. And now it is time to tell
what one was reluctant to tell during the whole process.
It became clear that the only state that took part in the project but
did not get any closer to the West is Armenia because Ukraine gained
new positions, and the other three countries decided a lot in their
pretensions. During the summit in Vilnius anything and anyone was
discussed except Armenia. Armenia just was not at the summit, it was
not noticed.
Earlier it had been stated that Armenia would be forgotten and
disappear from the international political arena. However, it was also
stated that expectations could have been worse than they are. Now it
means that Armenia is out of the discussion, and the Western community
thinks it is unable to make decisions independently, therefore it had
better remain Russia's vassal.
How would one set up relations with a state that has lost its
sovereignty? It is dangerous and meaningless. Hence, the West left the
game delicately, letting everyone understand that it `respects
Armenia's choice' to remain a vassal. In fact, the West sheds
responsibility for the economic and social development and security of
Armenia, even to the limited extent that was in place so far. The West
hands responsibility for Armenia to the West. It is more convenient.
`They understood everything.'
3-4 years of deception is enough to draw conclusions for a long term.
Hopes to enter through the backdoor next time are naïve and not
political. All kinds of hints that some time later Armenia will be
able to sign some `corrected' document with the European Union are
nonsense.
As a result, plans on geopolitical construction in Eastern Europe will
be corrected, and Armenia is viewed as a territory, not a state.
Armenia may be mentioned but only in two cases: when it will be needed
to put pressure on Russia or when it will be necessary to satisfy
Turkey's and Azerbaijan's ambitions.
In addition, the Armenian society should not be offended by the West
which, by the way, observes ethics. Even if the United States intends
to restore the Armenian sovereignty, proceeding from its own
interests, in a dialogue with the European Union will demand
guarantees of decency which do not exist.
Is everything so sad? No. The Armenian society is quite comfortable
and almost indifferent to the loss of its sovereignty. Now one can
only follow the great developments of the 21st century.
Igor Muradyan
15:51 30/11/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/31426
From: Baghdasarian