Tweet
OPINION OF THE NORAVANK FOUNDATION DIRECTOR GAGIK HARUTYUNYAN: NO RETURN TO THE PRIOR STATUS OF CRIMEA
11.03.2014
Mr. Harutyunyan, the whole world's attention today is focused on the
events in Ukraine. What do you think about these developments?
Indeed, there are multi-level complicated processes going on in
Ukraine. One of the levels is the societal factor. Undoubtedly, the
Ukrainian society wasn't happy with the quality of governance in
the country and its leadership in the person of Yanukovych. This
discontent developed into protests. However, this is just the
superficial level. Events happening in Kiev point to a well-organized
force that seized the power in a bloody coup, which resulted in about
100 casualties and thousands of injured.
Classical, military, violent coup d'etat...
In result of which the power was seized by some people, clearly
illegitimate. The underlying geopolitical rationale of what is
happening is obvious. The goal is to weaken Russia. In this case
Ukraine was a mere instrument to weaken Russia's positions, along
with those of Europe, by the way. It's no secret that the worst
scenario for the USA is the creation of a greater Europe from Lisbon to
Vladivostok. Characteristically, the bloody Ukrainian events developed
with direct support of the West, both individual politicians that
added fuel to the fire and some Western governments. And ironically,
this is the same West that makes a tremendous fuss about any single
violation of human rights
If we now look at those who seized the power, we get an impression
that the Ukrainian people fell out of the frying pan into the fire.
They got rid of some oligarchs to fall into the clutches of some
others.
Isn't that the truth! As for the events in Crimea, Russia can
be criticized for many things, including, especially, that as an
immediate neighbor of Ukraine, Russia has been unable to exercise
the so-called soft power. I am talking about information influence,
weakness of the Russian media generally and in Ukraine particularly.
Russia certainly cannot be proud about its positive image and was
unable to improve it for many years. However, there is also the factor
of Ukraine itself, something that can be described in Huntington's
wording as "civilizational fault line." A few years ago I wrote an
article analyzing this phenomenon and noted that Ukraine is among
the countries that have such lines, because western and eastern
Ukraine differ significantly by many parameters. We have to admit that
unfortunately, Ukraine did not manage to establish itself as a state,
as a consolidated country. It's constantly prone to one or another
type of revolutions and coups, Maidans, etc. But back to Crimea...
In Crimea it is about defending the rights of the Russian-speaking
population that comprises no less than 60%. Another key factor is the
Russian Navy base in Crimea. Generally speaking, Crimea was not part
of Ukraine in the past and was made such by Khrushchev's decision.
Also, admittedly, many western and eastern territories were added
to Ukraine somewhat artificially. The Russian-speaking population
of Crimea indeed needs protection. It is simply terrifying to
listen to the rhetoric of Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector
ultranationalist organization. But this is not only about him.
Remember that the first thing Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament)
did after the coup was to annul the law on regional languages. It
was then reverted back, but today it is still part of the agenda. One
can be absolutely sure that whatever final shape that law will take,
it will never provide sufficient rights to the Russian-speaking
population. In such situation the Russian leadership took some
adequate steps. After all, Russia did not declare war on Ukraine,
right? It just voiced about the possibility to send troops to Ukraine
in case the events take a certain turn to the worse, which would
require protection of the Russian (and perhaps, also Ukrainian)
population . Meanwhile, the Crimeans took over the initiative and a
process started for achieving greater autonomy, or I would even say,
sovereignty for the peninsula. It is hard to tell what this will
eventually bring about. Will Crimea become an independent nation that
will incorporate also Donetsk and Odessa? We can only make guesses
and offer scenarios. Yet one thing is clear - most likely there will
be no return to the prior status of Crimea.
Is it possible that the events in Crimea somehow affect the process
of Karabakh conflict resolution? And are there any parallels here?
Remember Leo Tolstoy's phrase: "every unhappy family is unhappy in
its own way." This concerns all trouble spots on the territory of the
former USSR. The Crimean conflict is different from Karabakh in its
roots. In case of Karabakh we had to deal not only with Azerbaijan,
but also with Turkey. In this context some analogies can be found,
since Turkey has a tremendous influence on the Tatar population of
Crimea. That is the only common thing. Everything else is different -
the processes are different both in scale and essence. South Ossetia
and Abkhazia precedents bear some resemblance to the Karabakh conflict,
but then again, the situation is very different there, because there
is no civilizational disparity between Georgians, and Abkhazians
and Ossetians. Unlike in the case with the Karabakh conflict, these
peoples, in principle, have no clash of civilizations.
And in Crimea still less, as the conflicting parties are both Slavs.
I believe that what currently happens in Crimea is beneficial for
Armenia in the geopolitical terms, because in case if the Russian Navy
base in Sevastopol is gone, then the Black Sea will become sort of an
inner sea of Turkey. Loss of such a strategic outpost would strengthen
Turkey, which is not our best friend, to put it mildly. It has to be
admitted that all the steps so far taken by Russia have been in line
with our geopolitical interests in one way or another. For instance,
we realize well, that had Russia not intervened in South Ossetia,
the Azerbaijanis would have been inclined to carry out a military
operation against Karabakh in a similar manner that Saakashvili
attempted to do with South Ossetia.
Then again, the Russian intervention in the Middle Eastern affairs
and prevention of the aggression against Syria was in line with our
interests as well, given the stalemate with the Armenian community in
Syria and in the Middle East as a whole. The same can be said about
Crimea. Russia having strong positions in general and in the Black
Sea, in particular, is in our interests. However, regardless of that,
under no circumstances one should forget about the rights of people,
about their right to live with their language, traditions and beliefs.
With all due respect to Ukraine and the Ukrainians, the process
happening in Crimea must be welcomed in principle.
Today there is a lot of talking about a new round of the Cold War
provoked by the events in Ukraine and the recent statements by Obama
come to prove that...
In 2002 I published an article in Golos Armenii titled "The Cold
War-2." You see, prerequisites for such war existed even then and the
Cold War continues. However, the situation in the world has changed.
Currently we live in a multi-polar world. Let's recall the numerous
attempts to isolate Iran from the world; they did not succeed because
there are some serious geopolitical actors around, such as Russia,
China, as well as India. Well, if the military cooperation between
Russia and the USA stops, it's no big deal either for Russia or for
the West. That's how it works...
Back to Ukraine. Here is a quote from a recent interview about the
situation in Ukraine given by Marine Le Pen, a right-wing French
politician, leader of the Front National: "It is everyone's fault,
if I may say. First of all, because the European Union added fuel to
the fire by helping the revolt to turn into a revolution. Because
they made part of the Ukraine believe that Ukraine may be accepted
in the EU, which is absolutely wrong. It has to be clearly stated:
European people do not want Ukraine in the EU. By the way, they also
do not want Albania, Macedonia and Turkey..." Your comments, please...
Well, what she said is true. The problem is that many confuse the EU
Association Agreements with the EU membership, although the former
does not imply the latter. Similar EU Association Agreements had
been signed with Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco,
Mexico, Palestine, Tunisia, Chile, and South Africa - so what? Did
it somehow change anything in Egypt, for example? Moreover, what
has changed for such countries as Bulgaria or Romania after the EU
membership? They lived not so well 30 years ago, and they continue
like that now. Even the Baltic countries that integrated into the EU
so smoothly, now face an economic crisis. The economy hardly grows,
there are numerous problems.
Many people in the Armenian society also think that an Association
Agreement with the EU provides an opportunity to become part of the
EU. But it does not. It is an ordinary agreement on trade relations,
and nothing more. Today Ukraine has fallen far behind economically
and is at the brink of a collapse, a financial default. Naturally,
there is no prospect for Ukraine's EU membership, not to mention
that now there are such people in the power structure as Yarosh,
who blames for everything the American and European imperialists,
the Jews, the Poles, the Moskals (i.e. Russians) and everyone else
around. The EU definitely does not need such Ukraine and actually,
such Ukraine is a persona non grata for many. The biggest mistake of
Yanukovych was that he decided to make a choice on whether to turn
right or left. If Ukraine maintained equal relations with both Russia
and Europe, it could become a very important structure for unification
of the greater Europe and could reap lots of dividends. However, I
repeat, the Ukrainian leadership made a huge mistake in an attempt
of choosing "either, or", and consequently, as a country that has
not established itself in geopolitical terms, with no strategic
directions and without a so-called geopolitical code of its own,
Ukraine now faces the situation that we observe now.
Zara Gevorgyan http://golosarmenii.am
Return ________________________________ Another materials of author
WORLD TRENDS AND SOUTH CAUCASUS [09.01.2014] ARMENIAN STUDIES AS
"CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE" [26.12.2013] GEOPOLITICAL SITUATION IN SOUTH
CAUCASUS IS GETTING CRYSTALLIZED - G.HARUTYUNYAN[18.12.2013] FAVOURABLE
REGIONAL POLITICAL SITUATION IS FORMED AROUND NAGORNO-KARABAKH
PROCESS[25.11.2013] SECURITY OF EURASIA: IDEOLOGY [28.10.2013] THE
MULTIPOLAR REALITIES, MIDDLE EAST AND NEWS TICKER GENOCIDE (Part
2)[09.09.2013] A NEW KIND OF GENOCIDE HAS BEEN PERPETRATED IN THE
MIDDLE EAST Interview of Gagik Harutyunyan to ArmInfo Information
Agency[13.06.2013] REGNUM: NEW KIND OF GENOCIDE IS BEING PERPETRATED
IN SYRIA (from the press-conference of Gagik Harutyunyan)[16.05.2013]
ON SOME MAIN ISSUES OF INTEGRATION IN THE CONTEXT OF A VALUE
SYSTEM[29.04.2013] INTEGRATION PROCESSES AND INFORMATION POLICY
[28.02.2013]
http://www.noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=12599
11.03.2014
Mr. Harutyunyan, the whole world's attention today is focused on the
events in Ukraine. What do you think about these developments?
Indeed, there are multi-level complicated processes going on in
Ukraine. One of the levels is the societal factor. Undoubtedly, the
Ukrainian society wasn't happy with the quality of governance in
the country and its leadership in the person of Yanukovych. This
discontent developed into protests. However, this is just the
superficial level. Events happening in Kiev point to a well-organized
force that seized the power in a bloody coup, which resulted in about
100 casualties and thousands of injured.
Classical, military, violent coup d'etat...
In result of which the power was seized by some people, clearly
illegitimate. The underlying geopolitical rationale of what is
happening is obvious. The goal is to weaken Russia. In this case
Ukraine was a mere instrument to weaken Russia's positions, along
with those of Europe, by the way. It's no secret that the worst
scenario for the USA is the creation of a greater Europe from Lisbon to
Vladivostok. Characteristically, the bloody Ukrainian events developed
with direct support of the West, both individual politicians that
added fuel to the fire and some Western governments. And ironically,
this is the same West that makes a tremendous fuss about any single
violation of human rights
If we now look at those who seized the power, we get an impression
that the Ukrainian people fell out of the frying pan into the fire.
They got rid of some oligarchs to fall into the clutches of some
others.
Isn't that the truth! As for the events in Crimea, Russia can
be criticized for many things, including, especially, that as an
immediate neighbor of Ukraine, Russia has been unable to exercise
the so-called soft power. I am talking about information influence,
weakness of the Russian media generally and in Ukraine particularly.
Russia certainly cannot be proud about its positive image and was
unable to improve it for many years. However, there is also the factor
of Ukraine itself, something that can be described in Huntington's
wording as "civilizational fault line." A few years ago I wrote an
article analyzing this phenomenon and noted that Ukraine is among
the countries that have such lines, because western and eastern
Ukraine differ significantly by many parameters. We have to admit that
unfortunately, Ukraine did not manage to establish itself as a state,
as a consolidated country. It's constantly prone to one or another
type of revolutions and coups, Maidans, etc. But back to Crimea...
In Crimea it is about defending the rights of the Russian-speaking
population that comprises no less than 60%. Another key factor is the
Russian Navy base in Crimea. Generally speaking, Crimea was not part
of Ukraine in the past and was made such by Khrushchev's decision.
Also, admittedly, many western and eastern territories were added
to Ukraine somewhat artificially. The Russian-speaking population
of Crimea indeed needs protection. It is simply terrifying to
listen to the rhetoric of Dmytro Yarosh, leader of the Right Sector
ultranationalist organization. But this is not only about him.
Remember that the first thing Verkhovna Rada (Ukrainian parliament)
did after the coup was to annul the law on regional languages. It
was then reverted back, but today it is still part of the agenda. One
can be absolutely sure that whatever final shape that law will take,
it will never provide sufficient rights to the Russian-speaking
population. In such situation the Russian leadership took some
adequate steps. After all, Russia did not declare war on Ukraine,
right? It just voiced about the possibility to send troops to Ukraine
in case the events take a certain turn to the worse, which would
require protection of the Russian (and perhaps, also Ukrainian)
population . Meanwhile, the Crimeans took over the initiative and a
process started for achieving greater autonomy, or I would even say,
sovereignty for the peninsula. It is hard to tell what this will
eventually bring about. Will Crimea become an independent nation that
will incorporate also Donetsk and Odessa? We can only make guesses
and offer scenarios. Yet one thing is clear - most likely there will
be no return to the prior status of Crimea.
Is it possible that the events in Crimea somehow affect the process
of Karabakh conflict resolution? And are there any parallels here?
Remember Leo Tolstoy's phrase: "every unhappy family is unhappy in
its own way." This concerns all trouble spots on the territory of the
former USSR. The Crimean conflict is different from Karabakh in its
roots. In case of Karabakh we had to deal not only with Azerbaijan,
but also with Turkey. In this context some analogies can be found,
since Turkey has a tremendous influence on the Tatar population of
Crimea. That is the only common thing. Everything else is different -
the processes are different both in scale and essence. South Ossetia
and Abkhazia precedents bear some resemblance to the Karabakh conflict,
but then again, the situation is very different there, because there
is no civilizational disparity between Georgians, and Abkhazians
and Ossetians. Unlike in the case with the Karabakh conflict, these
peoples, in principle, have no clash of civilizations.
And in Crimea still less, as the conflicting parties are both Slavs.
I believe that what currently happens in Crimea is beneficial for
Armenia in the geopolitical terms, because in case if the Russian Navy
base in Sevastopol is gone, then the Black Sea will become sort of an
inner sea of Turkey. Loss of such a strategic outpost would strengthen
Turkey, which is not our best friend, to put it mildly. It has to be
admitted that all the steps so far taken by Russia have been in line
with our geopolitical interests in one way or another. For instance,
we realize well, that had Russia not intervened in South Ossetia,
the Azerbaijanis would have been inclined to carry out a military
operation against Karabakh in a similar manner that Saakashvili
attempted to do with South Ossetia.
Then again, the Russian intervention in the Middle Eastern affairs
and prevention of the aggression against Syria was in line with our
interests as well, given the stalemate with the Armenian community in
Syria and in the Middle East as a whole. The same can be said about
Crimea. Russia having strong positions in general and in the Black
Sea, in particular, is in our interests. However, regardless of that,
under no circumstances one should forget about the rights of people,
about their right to live with their language, traditions and beliefs.
With all due respect to Ukraine and the Ukrainians, the process
happening in Crimea must be welcomed in principle.
Today there is a lot of talking about a new round of the Cold War
provoked by the events in Ukraine and the recent statements by Obama
come to prove that...
In 2002 I published an article in Golos Armenii titled "The Cold
War-2." You see, prerequisites for such war existed even then and the
Cold War continues. However, the situation in the world has changed.
Currently we live in a multi-polar world. Let's recall the numerous
attempts to isolate Iran from the world; they did not succeed because
there are some serious geopolitical actors around, such as Russia,
China, as well as India. Well, if the military cooperation between
Russia and the USA stops, it's no big deal either for Russia or for
the West. That's how it works...
Back to Ukraine. Here is a quote from a recent interview about the
situation in Ukraine given by Marine Le Pen, a right-wing French
politician, leader of the Front National: "It is everyone's fault,
if I may say. First of all, because the European Union added fuel to
the fire by helping the revolt to turn into a revolution. Because
they made part of the Ukraine believe that Ukraine may be accepted
in the EU, which is absolutely wrong. It has to be clearly stated:
European people do not want Ukraine in the EU. By the way, they also
do not want Albania, Macedonia and Turkey..." Your comments, please...
Well, what she said is true. The problem is that many confuse the EU
Association Agreements with the EU membership, although the former
does not imply the latter. Similar EU Association Agreements had
been signed with Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco,
Mexico, Palestine, Tunisia, Chile, and South Africa - so what? Did
it somehow change anything in Egypt, for example? Moreover, what
has changed for such countries as Bulgaria or Romania after the EU
membership? They lived not so well 30 years ago, and they continue
like that now. Even the Baltic countries that integrated into the EU
so smoothly, now face an economic crisis. The economy hardly grows,
there are numerous problems.
Many people in the Armenian society also think that an Association
Agreement with the EU provides an opportunity to become part of the
EU. But it does not. It is an ordinary agreement on trade relations,
and nothing more. Today Ukraine has fallen far behind economically
and is at the brink of a collapse, a financial default. Naturally,
there is no prospect for Ukraine's EU membership, not to mention
that now there are such people in the power structure as Yarosh,
who blames for everything the American and European imperialists,
the Jews, the Poles, the Moskals (i.e. Russians) and everyone else
around. The EU definitely does not need such Ukraine and actually,
such Ukraine is a persona non grata for many. The biggest mistake of
Yanukovych was that he decided to make a choice on whether to turn
right or left. If Ukraine maintained equal relations with both Russia
and Europe, it could become a very important structure for unification
of the greater Europe and could reap lots of dividends. However, I
repeat, the Ukrainian leadership made a huge mistake in an attempt
of choosing "either, or", and consequently, as a country that has
not established itself in geopolitical terms, with no strategic
directions and without a so-called geopolitical code of its own,
Ukraine now faces the situation that we observe now.
Zara Gevorgyan http://golosarmenii.am
Return ________________________________ Another materials of author
WORLD TRENDS AND SOUTH CAUCASUS [09.01.2014] ARMENIAN STUDIES AS
"CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE" [26.12.2013] GEOPOLITICAL SITUATION IN SOUTH
CAUCASUS IS GETTING CRYSTALLIZED - G.HARUTYUNYAN[18.12.2013] FAVOURABLE
REGIONAL POLITICAL SITUATION IS FORMED AROUND NAGORNO-KARABAKH
PROCESS[25.11.2013] SECURITY OF EURASIA: IDEOLOGY [28.10.2013] THE
MULTIPOLAR REALITIES, MIDDLE EAST AND NEWS TICKER GENOCIDE (Part
2)[09.09.2013] A NEW KIND OF GENOCIDE HAS BEEN PERPETRATED IN THE
MIDDLE EAST Interview of Gagik Harutyunyan to ArmInfo Information
Agency[13.06.2013] REGNUM: NEW KIND OF GENOCIDE IS BEING PERPETRATED
IN SYRIA (from the press-conference of Gagik Harutyunyan)[16.05.2013]
ON SOME MAIN ISSUES OF INTEGRATION IN THE CONTEXT OF A VALUE
SYSTEM[29.04.2013] INTEGRATION PROCESSES AND INFORMATION POLICY
[28.02.2013]
http://www.noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=12599