Tweet
THE KEY GOAL OF RUSSIA'S POLICY IN ARMENIA IS TO PREVENT FUSION OF PUBLIC PROTESTS WITH ANTI-RUSSIAN MOODS
ArmInfo's interview with Russian political expert Sergey Markedonov.
by David Stepanyan
Thursday, February 19, 09:27
Some analysts believe that the internal political conflict in Armenia
is part of the global confrontation between Russia and the West. Do
you share their opinion?
The confrontation has become vivid in the political field after the
Armenian President's unprecedentedly harsh speech targeted against
Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP) leader. The latter underwent criticism,
insults and humiliations, regardless of biased assessments of his
political figure. Like in the countries with a hybrid political regime,
all this is generally followed by loss of other statuses, too.
The first time the Republicans mentioned constitutional reforms was
last spring...
Yes, but in reality this process started in September 2013 after the
second victory of Serzh Sargsyan at the presidential elections. Though
the results of the second elections allowed Sargsyan to get rid of
the reputation of just Robert Kocharyan's successor, the elections
did not become his triumph. 36.74% of Heritage Party leader Raffi
Hovannisian's votes demonstrated the tangible public discontent
with the authorities. Therefore, from the very first day Sargsyan
started strengthening his positions in the 2017-2018 electoral
cycle. The constitutional reform concept that emerged in October
2014 and implied Armenia's switch to a parliamentary regime is the
key element of these plans. Naturally, the "reformers" did not care
for the favorable influence of the parliamentary regime and European
values on the public and political culture in the republic. The
formal redistribution of the powers is the best way to prolong the
existence of the current pro-power elite. As for Gagik Tsarukyan,
he has become a fly in the ointment of the RPA.
Does the visit of Victoria Nuland to Armenia have anything to do with
the internal political tensions in the country?
I think the latest meeting of Gagik Tsarukyan, Levon Ter-Petrosyan and
Raffi Hovannisian would never become the focus of such attention unless
the upcoming visit of the Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs to Yerevan. The growth of anti-American sentiments
in Russia allows perceiving the current situation in Armenia as a
preface of a new "color revolution" with possible defeat of Russia or
at least attempts to minimize Russia's influence in Armenia. In fact,
today the West considers Russia as a country whose interests can be
neglected. Washington, for instance, dislikes the Russian dominancy
in Armenia, particularly, Yerevan's refusal to initial the AA/DCFTA
with the EU. Nevertheless, one should not restrict the confrontation in
Armenia to the pro-Russian power-anti-Russian opposition format. Gagik
Tsarukyan has been one of the close teammates of Robert Kocharyan
for many years. But it is hard to consider Kocharyan a pro-Western
politician, especially following the 1 March 2008 bloody events.
Yes, but there are also Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Raffi Hovhannisian...
Even today many in Russia suspect Levon Ter-Petrosyan of immanent
sympathies for the West. In fact, the situation is not so simple as
it seems to be, because almost the whole basis of the current Russian
military presence in Armenia was laid in the 1990s during his term
in office. As regards Heritage leader Raffi Hovannisian, his stand
really looks pro-Western. On the other hand, Heritage's radical demands
concerning Armenia's recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic's
independence completely destroys the short-circuit logic of perceiving
the opposition as a force ready for unreasonable high concessions.
This speaks volumes.
In other words, do you think that it is wrong to associate the
protests against the ruling regime in Armenia with the externally
inspired protests against Russia's interests in the South Caucasus?
Luckily there are no signs that the current public protests may grow
into anti-Russian moods. But if Russia fails to shortly find efficient
operators for pushing its interests in Armenia, it may face growing
anti-Russian moods. So, the key goal of our policy in Armenia now
is to prevent fusion of public protests with anti-Russian moods. We
must be more balanced in our policy and must rely on the contacts of
Russian businessmen with Robert Kocharyan, Gagik Tsarukyan and other
Armenian politicians.
Do you see any link between the internal political tensions in Armenia
and the Armenian President's decision to withdraw the Armenian-Turkish
protocols from the agenda of the Armenian Parliament?
Such a link is well backed taking into consideration an extremely hard
domestic political background of Sargsyan's statement. I should say,
that besides the "main troublemaker" Gagik Tsarukyan, Serzh Sargsyan
has got other opponents too which are extremely displeased with the
ways and results of his ruling Armenia.
Many people have taken it like a challenge. But actually, Sargsyan has
simply formalized the true state of normalizing of the Armenian-Turkish
relations for all the post-Zurich years. Just the parliamentary
ratification has become a barrier which neither Ankara nor Yerevan
could overcome. Armenia did not manage to separate the Karabakh
settlement process from establishing relations with Turkey.
For its part, Ankara using the factor of isolation and regional
closeness of Armenia, did not manage to force Yerevan to adaptableness.
Sargsyan's recent step does not at all mean that both countries
will never return to normalization of relations. The geo-political
isolation of Armenia is an impartial reason for finding the ways on
normalization of relations with Turkey. The latter is not so much
popular in the Middle East. For this reason, Turkey is still concerned
about improvement of relations with the European Union, which is
rather problematic without the pragmatics at the Armenian direction.
Was the forthcoming Centennial of the Armenian Genocide a catalyst
for this decision?
Against such a background, not only in Armenia but in Turkey as well,
it is necessary to any leader simply to demonstrate his commitment to
the historical memory. Serzh Sargsyan is not an exception, especially
if we take into consideration that if he did not do that, his numerous
opponents would remind him of that for many times.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=6E411FB0-B800-11E4-BA850EB7C0D21663
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
ArmInfo's interview with Russian political expert Sergey Markedonov.
by David Stepanyan
Thursday, February 19, 09:27
Some analysts believe that the internal political conflict in Armenia
is part of the global confrontation between Russia and the West. Do
you share their opinion?
The confrontation has become vivid in the political field after the
Armenian President's unprecedentedly harsh speech targeted against
Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP) leader. The latter underwent criticism,
insults and humiliations, regardless of biased assessments of his
political figure. Like in the countries with a hybrid political regime,
all this is generally followed by loss of other statuses, too.
The first time the Republicans mentioned constitutional reforms was
last spring...
Yes, but in reality this process started in September 2013 after the
second victory of Serzh Sargsyan at the presidential elections. Though
the results of the second elections allowed Sargsyan to get rid of
the reputation of just Robert Kocharyan's successor, the elections
did not become his triumph. 36.74% of Heritage Party leader Raffi
Hovannisian's votes demonstrated the tangible public discontent
with the authorities. Therefore, from the very first day Sargsyan
started strengthening his positions in the 2017-2018 electoral
cycle. The constitutional reform concept that emerged in October
2014 and implied Armenia's switch to a parliamentary regime is the
key element of these plans. Naturally, the "reformers" did not care
for the favorable influence of the parliamentary regime and European
values on the public and political culture in the republic. The
formal redistribution of the powers is the best way to prolong the
existence of the current pro-power elite. As for Gagik Tsarukyan,
he has become a fly in the ointment of the RPA.
Does the visit of Victoria Nuland to Armenia have anything to do with
the internal political tensions in the country?
I think the latest meeting of Gagik Tsarukyan, Levon Ter-Petrosyan and
Raffi Hovannisian would never become the focus of such attention unless
the upcoming visit of the Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs to Yerevan. The growth of anti-American sentiments
in Russia allows perceiving the current situation in Armenia as a
preface of a new "color revolution" with possible defeat of Russia or
at least attempts to minimize Russia's influence in Armenia. In fact,
today the West considers Russia as a country whose interests can be
neglected. Washington, for instance, dislikes the Russian dominancy
in Armenia, particularly, Yerevan's refusal to initial the AA/DCFTA
with the EU. Nevertheless, one should not restrict the confrontation in
Armenia to the pro-Russian power-anti-Russian opposition format. Gagik
Tsarukyan has been one of the close teammates of Robert Kocharyan
for many years. But it is hard to consider Kocharyan a pro-Western
politician, especially following the 1 March 2008 bloody events.
Yes, but there are also Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Raffi Hovhannisian...
Even today many in Russia suspect Levon Ter-Petrosyan of immanent
sympathies for the West. In fact, the situation is not so simple as
it seems to be, because almost the whole basis of the current Russian
military presence in Armenia was laid in the 1990s during his term
in office. As regards Heritage leader Raffi Hovannisian, his stand
really looks pro-Western. On the other hand, Heritage's radical demands
concerning Armenia's recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic's
independence completely destroys the short-circuit logic of perceiving
the opposition as a force ready for unreasonable high concessions.
This speaks volumes.
In other words, do you think that it is wrong to associate the
protests against the ruling regime in Armenia with the externally
inspired protests against Russia's interests in the South Caucasus?
Luckily there are no signs that the current public protests may grow
into anti-Russian moods. But if Russia fails to shortly find efficient
operators for pushing its interests in Armenia, it may face growing
anti-Russian moods. So, the key goal of our policy in Armenia now
is to prevent fusion of public protests with anti-Russian moods. We
must be more balanced in our policy and must rely on the contacts of
Russian businessmen with Robert Kocharyan, Gagik Tsarukyan and other
Armenian politicians.
Do you see any link between the internal political tensions in Armenia
and the Armenian President's decision to withdraw the Armenian-Turkish
protocols from the agenda of the Armenian Parliament?
Such a link is well backed taking into consideration an extremely hard
domestic political background of Sargsyan's statement. I should say,
that besides the "main troublemaker" Gagik Tsarukyan, Serzh Sargsyan
has got other opponents too which are extremely displeased with the
ways and results of his ruling Armenia.
Many people have taken it like a challenge. But actually, Sargsyan has
simply formalized the true state of normalizing of the Armenian-Turkish
relations for all the post-Zurich years. Just the parliamentary
ratification has become a barrier which neither Ankara nor Yerevan
could overcome. Armenia did not manage to separate the Karabakh
settlement process from establishing relations with Turkey.
For its part, Ankara using the factor of isolation and regional
closeness of Armenia, did not manage to force Yerevan to adaptableness.
Sargsyan's recent step does not at all mean that both countries
will never return to normalization of relations. The geo-political
isolation of Armenia is an impartial reason for finding the ways on
normalization of relations with Turkey. The latter is not so much
popular in the Middle East. For this reason, Turkey is still concerned
about improvement of relations with the European Union, which is
rather problematic without the pragmatics at the Armenian direction.
Was the forthcoming Centennial of the Armenian Genocide a catalyst
for this decision?
Against such a background, not only in Armenia but in Turkey as well,
it is necessary to any leader simply to demonstrate his commitment to
the historical memory. Serzh Sargsyan is not an exception, especially
if we take into consideration that if he did not do that, his numerous
opponents would remind him of that for many times.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=6E411FB0-B800-11E4-BA850EB7C0D21663
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress