Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

As Long As Serzh Sargsyan Remains President

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • As Long As Serzh Sargsyan Remains President

    As Long As Serzh Sargsyan Remains President

    Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
    Comments - 30 August 2014, 13:54


    We have already noted that with all his intellectual misery Serzh
    Sargsyan played a huge role in preventing access of all kinds of
    obsolete politicians of the vulgar past to government, as well as
    commitments between them and foreign interested centers of power.
    Levon Ter-Petrosyan, Robert Kocharyan, Raffi Hovannisian and their
    myrmidons can confirm this as Serzh Sargsyan's behavior towards them
    had a lot of unexpected turns, especially towards Robert Kocharyan.

    There was hardly anything important in Serzh Sargsyan's position. Most
    probably, it was determined by personal interests but, one way or
    another, the pro-government, pro-Russian and opposition-pro-Russian
    groups must be grateful to him for such a position. It did not give
    them a lot of joy but illusions and "favorable" expectations occurred.

    Serzh Sargsyan's attempts to normalize relations with Turkey and
    penetrate into the Eurasian Union were perceived by their opponents
    from different camps quite originally; in other words, this is good,
    of course but he cannot cope with these issues so we will resolve them
    when we come to government. Here is ethic and logic typical of
    Yerevan, and generally this is denoted with other wording.

    At the same time, Serzh Sargsyan has led Armenia into a stalemate
    tightly and lastingly, and even if the Eurasian and Customs Unions
    blast like bubbles, Armenia will hardly make fun of it because nobody
    knows how to creep out of this ugly situation. Simply there is nobody
    to resolve these issues.

    Serzh Sargsyan who is related to the Karabakh war and army building
    has strived to gather around him not only people who are not related
    to the idea of statehood, including the Karabakh idea, people who are
    depressed by the former history of unification of the homeland but
    also striving for depriving Armenia of independence.

    The actual Armenian elite are riffraff while there is no alternative
    yet. Hopes on armed forces and the young generation are still
    expectations but still there is hope, and therefore bold people must
    understand that the worse the better.

    Serzh Sargsyan has lost even the miserable team which he had been able
    to get together from among the wastes of the Armenian ethnicity and is
    completely lost ahead of new political threats.

    Surprisingly, he apparently thinks that the current situation of the
    country and the state of the ruling regime is not bad, and there are
    good expectations.

    Now that it is clear that the pro-Russian economic and political, as
    well as military "unions" will soon collapse, Serzh Sargsyan is trying
    to demonstrate shrewdness and ability to calculate at least two moves
    ahead with the help of venal mass media. All this is bullshit, and in
    reality there is complete political failure and inadequacy.

    In any case, such radical assessments are self-defeating because it
    turns out that such a failure politician as the president of Armenia
    has been able to thwart such strong plans as the integration of
    Armenia with the European Union all by himself. Apparently, there were
    stronger circumstances which forced Serzh Sargsyan to walk into the
    blind alley and lead Armenia into international isolation.

    The developments in Ukraine with which so much is linked in terms of
    reconstruction of the Armenian statehood and sovereignty have at the
    same time demonstrated the nature and characteristics of the policy of
    the West and, first of all, leading European states. Germany
    officially announced that it is not likely to supply weapons to
    parties of conflicts. Practically, similar positions are held by
    countries which preferred confrontation with Russia.

    In the case of Armenia, limitations of supply of arms by the countries
    of the Western community are even tougher than in the case of Ukraine
    or Georgia. The Western states pretend that their position is
    principled and complies with the international law. However, everyone
    understands that refusal to supply arms to Armenia means strengthening
    Armenia's dependence on Russia, its main supplier of arms.

    Everyone understands another thing, namely a strong army is the main
    factor of supporting peaceful coexistence in the South Caucasus. All
    the other arguments are relative and often illusory.

    However, this is not the full understanding of the situation. With its
    capacities, Azerbaijan is much stronger than Armenia which has no
    ability to buy arms in international markets. Therefore, observing and
    maintaining balance of forces in the South Caucasus, primarily between
    Armenia and Azerbaijan, supposes supply of arms to Armenia by Western
    states as a priority.

    At the same time, the signals that Armenia received prior to
    "September 3" were rather weak and unconvincing. Separate countries of
    the West might have been interested in containing Azerbaijan's
    aggression with the help of Russia which supplies weapons to Armenia
    but Russia has shifted the game to a different dimension and supplies
    Azerbaijan with a quantity of weapons which cannot comply with the
    objectives of observing balance of forces because balance of forces in
    the South Caucasus means Armenia's absolute advantage in the sphere of
    defense.

    Russia has been able to beat the West but the letter did not care much
    until Russia demonstrated ambitions for dominance in Ukraine, the
    Black Sea and the South Caucasus. Currently, Turkey and Israel, partly
    Belarus and Azerbaijan have broken the balance of forces though this
    notion is relative.

    At the same time, it would have been unfair to deny the Western
    perspective of Armenia in terms of defense and security prior to
    "September 3", especially considering the perspective. Defense
    cooperation between the Western states and Armenia was procrastinated
    and pedaled without a valid reason. Armenia was required to revise the
    armed forces without any guarantee that the results of such revision
    would be possessed by Turkey and eventually Azerbaijan.

    For a long time after the collapse of the USSR through the beginning
    of the 2000s the Western community openly supported Azerbaijan's
    interests and only when the relations of the United States and Turkey
    and NATO were questioned, the importance of Armenia in the region
    grew. Now the United States is busy with geopolitical plagiarism and
    is considering Armenia as one of the many factors of containing
    Turkey's regional expansion, and Azerbaijan as a geopolitically and
    ideologically unacceptable state.

    Russia was weak and had to support Armenia. Now Putin has been made
    believe that Russia has strengthened enough to shift to large-scale
    expansion in different directions. Such a Russia which is ready to
    agree with Turkey and Azerbaijan on anything in prejudice of Armenia's
    interests is threat N 1 to Armenia.

    The United States and NATO have to move on to strengthening their
    positions in Eastern Europe, including establishment of military
    bases, and this supposes, inter alia, distance between Armenia and
    Russia. In addition, such exhausted ideas as normalization between
    Armenia and Turkey as a means of achieving independence of Armenia are
    no longer effective and are not being considered by actual circles.

    The United States and NATO are creating a "zone" of European security
    and without the participation of Armenia, with consideration of Iran's
    role, this objective cannot be implemented fully.

    It would be possible to achieve such frontiers without high risks had
    the Armenian government possessed two qualities: necessary political
    intellect and determination. Serzh Sargsyan did what he could, he is a
    functionary of particular type and he was not even able to use the
    resources that he had. He capitulated to the Russians, ceding the
    country's sovereignty, and now as long as he remains the president,
    the West will not supply a single bullet to Armenia nor will the West
    grant serious economic preferences.

    Even now that the pro-Russian blocs are falling obviously apart, Serzh
    Sargsyan continues to thwart the plans of the United States and NATO
    in favor of Putin. No doubt his conductor Edward Nalbandyan who acts
    as the fulfiller of Russia's will is mainly responsible for this
    policy.

    Nevertheless, even if hypothetically the president of Armenia had not
    given in to Russian rule, it should be acknowledged that he was doing
    it with high risks because the West did not make due initiatives for
    ensuring Armenia's security. Even a decisive and legitimate president
    would have found himself in a difficult situation, let alone Serzh
    Sargsyan.

    Therefore, he needs certain understanding, as well as the entire
    intellectual and socially miserable Armenian society which has
    capitulated to not only Putin but also Serzh Sargsyan who is not
    capable of putting forth questions to his patrons and partners.

    Now it is important to understand how guilty Serzh Sargsyan is for his
    choice and how decisive the parallel government can be. My friends and
    opponents were unable to answer this question in a quite frank
    discussion. Now the question is not about Serzh Sargsyan, there is no
    such question any more, but about further policy and politicians in
    order not to have to justify and defend forthcoming politicians.

    The pro-Western course is for serious and bold people for whom the
    nation's sovereignty is not lip service. The United States and NATO
    have bigger understanding that "there is no alternative to
    geopolitical expansion" towards the Black Sea - South Caucasus -
    Caspian and are transforming their relations with new partners in
    those regions at a higher pace.

    The United States and its genuine partners are facing three important
    objectives in Eastern Europe: lead to due division of the policy of
    the international isolation of Russia, minimize pretensions of
    opponents to enlargement and expansion of mission of the alliance and
    proposal of integration to the countries of the region, launch a
    large-scale policy of supplying arms to the countries of Eastern
    Europe on acceptable terms.

    The United States will implement adequate objectives independently
    from NATO if such issues as NATO's objectives are not resolved during
    the summit in Cardiff but the alliance had to agree with such
    initiatives. This is a chance for Armenia but Armenia needs an
    appropriate real government or parallel government which would be
    capable of binding agreements with the United States and NATO. For the
    time being, there is no government in Armenia.


    http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32910#sthash.UdLOYDa2.dpuf

Working...
X