Tweet
Russian-Turkish Alliance Is A Chance For Armenia
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - 23 August 2014, 17:15
The American analytical community is experiencing a serious genre
crisis because succession of not only people but also ideas has not
been ensured. International politics has stepped far ahead and a lot
has changed in the world while most American analysts are faithful to
old patterns and clichés which were developed in the period following
the "cold war".
Crises in American analytics were observed in different geopolitical
directions, primarily regarding the Near East where developments
expected in wide public circles had not been predicted. Political
scientists and analysts working in the direction of Eastern Europe and
Eurasia are traditionally experts on Soviet Union which see the
problems of this vast and diverse region as a mechanical counteraction
of two or three "poles" of power.
These specialists, as always, enjoy great respect in the U.S.
government agencies, and their opinion remains a key issue in the
public context of discussions but at the same time new experts working
on political research have emerged in the United States.
It should be noted that part of traditional analysts are openly
working for the interests of Azerbaijan, receiving considerable
amounts, including funding for institutes and think-tanks which they
represent. This circumstance does influence their activities but in
the public aspect the opinion of experts who are better funded and
cherish their professional position prevails because there have been a
lot of examples when engaged experts quickly lost their authority and
positions in the analytical community.
Now practically all analysts who are experienced Sovietologists and
speak Russian well could offer Armenia only one recommendation - fast
normalization with Turkey. In addition, normalization of relations
with Azerbaijan is seen as something secondary. They think
normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations is the most effective and
comprehensible way of achievement of independence for Armenia.
Furthermore, such recommendations are not found in the circles of more
actual analysts doing research for the key U.S. government agencies.
However, since the "special" sphere of researchers is not dealing with
the problems of Armenia at full, opinions and assessments of
traditional analysts prevail in the public sphere and corridors of the
government, which does influence the general discussion on the South
Caucasus and entire Eastern Europe. Now practically all the
Sovietologists have already expressed their opinions on one idea or
another. One has to understand that if no new ideas are born in the
State Department in the nearest future, this archaism will be
considered as topical.
The idea of normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations as a means of
ousting Russia from the South Caucasus does not contain anything
realistic or topical because Turkey is no longer seen as a reliable
partner for NATO and the United States and conducts an independent,
control-free policy on behalf on the side of the Western community. In
the West, Turkey is viewed as a possible close partner of Russia, and
it is impossible to associate with it fulfillment of interests of the
West either in Eastern Europe or the Near East.
It is well-known that now, as the next NATO summit is coming up, the
majority of member states of the alliance are expecting problems with
Turkey's position. If the State Department considered the settlement
of Turkish-Armenian relations a real means of achievement of the goal,
these initiatives would have been brought to being. For the time
being, nothing is seen.
Nevertheless, the attempts at normalization of the Turkish-Armenian
relations, initially a failure, automatically increase Armenia's
dependence on Russia because every time after failure the Western
community does not offer Armenia alternatives in the sphere of
security.
No doubt this situation occurs thanks to the positions of Armenia and
the West. Armenia, directed by Russia, continues to distance from the
West, and the West cannot make up its mind to offer alternative
solutions to Armenia. It occurred in a more salient form in the
process of Armenia's attempts to integrate with the European Union
which ended up in the failure of 3 September 2013.
In addition, nobody in the West, not even the United States tried to
look into the reasons of failure of attempts at normalization.
Failures of these attempts are mostly explained by the content of
relations and consultations between Turkey and Russia which will
always find common interests on the basis of the "Armenian topic".
The signing of protocols in Zurich was cartoon diplomacy with shadow
participation of Russia. However, Russia is not the only problem. For
Turkey the "Armenian factor" is an effective lever of development of
relations with Russia and the West simultaneously.
It should be noted that any initiative aimed at normalization of
relations with Armenia is highly useful not only for Turkey but also
Azerbaijan, especially if these initiatives come from the United
States. This enables Turkey to manipulate this topic and eventually
outline its additional advantages on the condition of thwarting these
attempts. This failure is political capital in the baggage of Turkish
and Russian politics. Upon observation of this situation even Georgia
understands to what these initiatives lead to when Turkey and Russia
join their efforts.
The researchers who are dealing with the problems of foreign policy in
government agencies see Turkey's role in the destiny of the countries
of the Black Sea and the South Caucasus differently. Turkey is being
viewed as a big problem for the United States in all the geopolitical
aspects, and they prefer conducting a "containment" policy on it.
In addition, considering the similarity of interests and styles of
Turkey and Russia, they have to conduct a policy of "dual containment"
and the countries of the Black Sea and Caucasian region and the Near
East, together with Iran, are viewed by the United States and their
partners as a factor of "containment" of Turkish expansion.
The tendency of turning Turkey to a Russian partner in the Atlantic
field is observed because Turkey is becoming interested in limiting
expansion of NATO composition and missions and the movement of the
alliance towards Eastern Europe, as well as strengthening of the
military-political presence of the United States and NATO in the Black
Sea and the South Caucasus.
In fact, Turkey and Russia are allies in the Black Sea and this
circumstance will certainly develop. Some controversies in the
Turkish-Russian relations relating to the processes in Syria have not
become any factor of their confrontation except phenomena with
indirect importance.
But now as the importance of Russia in the Near East is minimized, it
will find out that Turkey can be its only ally in this region.
Besides, the role of the south Caucasus is strengthening in bringing
closer and agreeing the interests of Turkey and Russia. Soon Turkey
will no longer demonstrate even in terms of demagogy that it has
controversies with Russia.
Not a long time ago the Americans and Europeans were worried about the
possibility of rapprochement of Turkey and Russia though they
predicted difficulties in this direction for both sides. Now on both
sides of the Atlantic Ocean they are interested in the Turkish-Russian
"association" because it allows putting forth claims to Ankara in
terms of possible discussions and lead the two states into one camp
against which joint efforts can be planned.
All this seems questionable but only for one banal reason - Turkey
remains a NATO member, which irritates the Western community.
The functions and role of Armenia in such arrangement of forces are
obvious and practically such a situation allows hoping for genuine
sovereignty. Armenian diplomats have no idea of such realities and
relevant tasks. One can hear them say: "Analytics annoys, too much
analytics does not allow concentrating, when there is too much of it,
it hinders to work." This has been stated recently and absolutely
frankly. Who has flooded weary Armenian diplomats with analytics?
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32882#sthash.PD24zjad.dpuf
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - 23 August 2014, 17:15
The American analytical community is experiencing a serious genre
crisis because succession of not only people but also ideas has not
been ensured. International politics has stepped far ahead and a lot
has changed in the world while most American analysts are faithful to
old patterns and clichés which were developed in the period following
the "cold war".
Crises in American analytics were observed in different geopolitical
directions, primarily regarding the Near East where developments
expected in wide public circles had not been predicted. Political
scientists and analysts working in the direction of Eastern Europe and
Eurasia are traditionally experts on Soviet Union which see the
problems of this vast and diverse region as a mechanical counteraction
of two or three "poles" of power.
These specialists, as always, enjoy great respect in the U.S.
government agencies, and their opinion remains a key issue in the
public context of discussions but at the same time new experts working
on political research have emerged in the United States.
It should be noted that part of traditional analysts are openly
working for the interests of Azerbaijan, receiving considerable
amounts, including funding for institutes and think-tanks which they
represent. This circumstance does influence their activities but in
the public aspect the opinion of experts who are better funded and
cherish their professional position prevails because there have been a
lot of examples when engaged experts quickly lost their authority and
positions in the analytical community.
Now practically all analysts who are experienced Sovietologists and
speak Russian well could offer Armenia only one recommendation - fast
normalization with Turkey. In addition, normalization of relations
with Azerbaijan is seen as something secondary. They think
normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations is the most effective and
comprehensible way of achievement of independence for Armenia.
Furthermore, such recommendations are not found in the circles of more
actual analysts doing research for the key U.S. government agencies.
However, since the "special" sphere of researchers is not dealing with
the problems of Armenia at full, opinions and assessments of
traditional analysts prevail in the public sphere and corridors of the
government, which does influence the general discussion on the South
Caucasus and entire Eastern Europe. Now practically all the
Sovietologists have already expressed their opinions on one idea or
another. One has to understand that if no new ideas are born in the
State Department in the nearest future, this archaism will be
considered as topical.
The idea of normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations as a means of
ousting Russia from the South Caucasus does not contain anything
realistic or topical because Turkey is no longer seen as a reliable
partner for NATO and the United States and conducts an independent,
control-free policy on behalf on the side of the Western community. In
the West, Turkey is viewed as a possible close partner of Russia, and
it is impossible to associate with it fulfillment of interests of the
West either in Eastern Europe or the Near East.
It is well-known that now, as the next NATO summit is coming up, the
majority of member states of the alliance are expecting problems with
Turkey's position. If the State Department considered the settlement
of Turkish-Armenian relations a real means of achievement of the goal,
these initiatives would have been brought to being. For the time
being, nothing is seen.
Nevertheless, the attempts at normalization of the Turkish-Armenian
relations, initially a failure, automatically increase Armenia's
dependence on Russia because every time after failure the Western
community does not offer Armenia alternatives in the sphere of
security.
No doubt this situation occurs thanks to the positions of Armenia and
the West. Armenia, directed by Russia, continues to distance from the
West, and the West cannot make up its mind to offer alternative
solutions to Armenia. It occurred in a more salient form in the
process of Armenia's attempts to integrate with the European Union
which ended up in the failure of 3 September 2013.
In addition, nobody in the West, not even the United States tried to
look into the reasons of failure of attempts at normalization.
Failures of these attempts are mostly explained by the content of
relations and consultations between Turkey and Russia which will
always find common interests on the basis of the "Armenian topic".
The signing of protocols in Zurich was cartoon diplomacy with shadow
participation of Russia. However, Russia is not the only problem. For
Turkey the "Armenian factor" is an effective lever of development of
relations with Russia and the West simultaneously.
It should be noted that any initiative aimed at normalization of
relations with Armenia is highly useful not only for Turkey but also
Azerbaijan, especially if these initiatives come from the United
States. This enables Turkey to manipulate this topic and eventually
outline its additional advantages on the condition of thwarting these
attempts. This failure is political capital in the baggage of Turkish
and Russian politics. Upon observation of this situation even Georgia
understands to what these initiatives lead to when Turkey and Russia
join their efforts.
The researchers who are dealing with the problems of foreign policy in
government agencies see Turkey's role in the destiny of the countries
of the Black Sea and the South Caucasus differently. Turkey is being
viewed as a big problem for the United States in all the geopolitical
aspects, and they prefer conducting a "containment" policy on it.
In addition, considering the similarity of interests and styles of
Turkey and Russia, they have to conduct a policy of "dual containment"
and the countries of the Black Sea and Caucasian region and the Near
East, together with Iran, are viewed by the United States and their
partners as a factor of "containment" of Turkish expansion.
The tendency of turning Turkey to a Russian partner in the Atlantic
field is observed because Turkey is becoming interested in limiting
expansion of NATO composition and missions and the movement of the
alliance towards Eastern Europe, as well as strengthening of the
military-political presence of the United States and NATO in the Black
Sea and the South Caucasus.
In fact, Turkey and Russia are allies in the Black Sea and this
circumstance will certainly develop. Some controversies in the
Turkish-Russian relations relating to the processes in Syria have not
become any factor of their confrontation except phenomena with
indirect importance.
But now as the importance of Russia in the Near East is minimized, it
will find out that Turkey can be its only ally in this region.
Besides, the role of the south Caucasus is strengthening in bringing
closer and agreeing the interests of Turkey and Russia. Soon Turkey
will no longer demonstrate even in terms of demagogy that it has
controversies with Russia.
Not a long time ago the Americans and Europeans were worried about the
possibility of rapprochement of Turkey and Russia though they
predicted difficulties in this direction for both sides. Now on both
sides of the Atlantic Ocean they are interested in the Turkish-Russian
"association" because it allows putting forth claims to Ankara in
terms of possible discussions and lead the two states into one camp
against which joint efforts can be planned.
All this seems questionable but only for one banal reason - Turkey
remains a NATO member, which irritates the Western community.
The functions and role of Armenia in such arrangement of forces are
obvious and practically such a situation allows hoping for genuine
sovereignty. Armenian diplomats have no idea of such realities and
relevant tasks. One can hear them say: "Analytics annoys, too much
analytics does not allow concentrating, when there is too much of it,
it hinders to work." This has been stated recently and absolutely
frankly. Who has flooded weary Armenian diplomats with analytics?
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32882#sthash.PD24zjad.dpuf