Tweet
Focus on the Caucasus
EDITORIAL | APRIL 27, 2014 10:56 PM
By Edmond Y. Azadian
The April 19 issue of London's Economist weekly features on its cover
Russia's map in the shape of a bear reaching out to Ukraine to swallow
it, having already digested Crimea. The cartoon is titled,
`Insatiable.'
The crisis in Ukraine has global and regional implications. The West
had pledged not to expand NATO by absorbing former satellite nations
of Eastern Europe but it has been moving inexorably to encircle
Russia, fueling a new Cold War.
On the other hand, Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is in a revanchist
mood to restore Moscow's old glory. Mr. Putin has stated that the
collapse of the Soviet Union was the most catastrophic event of the
20th century. The political atmosphere is somewhat similar to Germany
after World War I, when a humiliated country was clamoring to revive
and take its revenge. For that reason, the population was ready to go
to any lengths to restore what it saw as its national dignity.
Crimea's takeover and Moscow's aggressive posture on Ukraine's border
have boosted Putin's popularity domestically to 80 percent, despite
the country's economic woes.
This is the picture on the global plane. But Russia's newly-acquired
assertive policies impact heavily the neighboring regions, where
Armenia happens to be located.
By necessity, Armenia chose to join the Customs Union led by Moscow,
to be followed by the Eurasia Union, which aspires to become the
eastern counterpart of the European Union.
By switching its allegiance towards Russia, Armenia has alienated the
West and the fallout from that decision may show up in time gradually.
But Russia has already taken Armenia for granted and has been treating
Yerevan in a cavalier fashion ' not the behavior of a strategic
partner.
With all the external changes in the region, Armenia has undertaken
restructuring its government. Tigran Sargisian, a respected economist,
resigned his post as prime minister recently, to be replaced by Hovik
Abrahamyan, the former speaker of the parliament, a reliable partner
for Armenia's oligarchs.
After the final reshuffling of the entire cabinet, some facts may
emerge to demonstrate how much of the changes were owed to Moscow's
manipulations.
For the first time, there was consolidation within the ranks of the
opposition parties in Armenia, giving rise to the expectations that
the ruling Republican party may be loosening its grip on power.
One thing that is becoming obvious is that Armenia will be receiving
the short shrift in the emerging developments of the Caucasus. By
betting its future on the Russia, it is destined to fare on some rough
seas.
We read in the same issue of the Economist, `He [Putin] has claimed a
duty to intervene to protect Russian speakers wherever they are. ¦
That might be in Transdniestria, a slice of Moldova that has hosted
Russian troops since the early 1990s. Or Kazakhstan, which has a large
Russian population in the north. Or even the Baltic states, two of
which have large Russian-speaking minorities and all of them depend on
Russian gas.'
The West has been watching with alarm Russia's ambitions and will be
resorting to countermeasures to contain the awakening Russian bear. In
the process, many countries' destinies will be at risk in the ebb and
flow of this new Cold War.
Armenia is safely in Russia's court, for better or worse. Thus far,
Russia has remained insensitive to its strategic partner's priorities,
rendering that alliance into a one-way street.
Instead of showcasing its allies as prosperous countries benefitting
from their dependence on Moscow, Russia has been treating them
recklessly. Georgia took advantage of its dependence on the West by
improving its economy, curbing corruption, albeit at a scandalous
cost, thereby discouraging emigration and recently had a peaceful
transfer of power. Had former president Mikhail Saakashvili acted more
prudently, the country would also have avoided a territorial
amputation.
During a recent TV interview, Mr. Putin angrily chastised
Transdniestria's neighbors, Moldova and Ukraine, which have been
blockading that slice of territory of great interest to Moscow.
Conversely, Moscow has yet to utter a word against Turkey and
Azerbaijan, which have been blockading Armenia for the last two
decades, with devastating effects. On the contrary, Moscow has been
arming Azerbaijan at an alarming rate, allowing President Ilham Aliyev
to claim not only Karabagh, but all of Armenia itself as historic
Azeri land.
The Stockholm International Peace Institute reported recently that
between 2004 and 2014, Azerbaijan's military spending increased 493
percent. Azerbaijan's Defense Ministry has announced that Russia has
already sold to Azerbaijan more weapons than any other country,
including Turkey. This confirms President Aliyev's statement last
August that Russian-Azerbaijani defense contracts are `measured at $4
billion and tend to grow.'
Why is Azerbaijan being armed at this rate and at whom are those
weapons pointed?
On the one hand, Baku is buying Israel's drones and cooperating with
the West to contain Iran and on the other hand, Russia is spoiling
Baku's leadership to control that country's energy resources and to
keep it on a short leash politically.
Within this scenario, the Russian military base in Armenia receives
academic significance as much as its defense is concerned. And there
has never been an ironclad public pronouncement about its use to
defend Armenia and Karabagh. It becomes more and more apparent that
the base is more of a tool to sustain Moscow's regional policies
rather than protect Armenia.
We have yet to analyze and digest a statement by the Russian
Ambassador to Armenia Ivan Volynkin at the seventh Forum of Russian
Compatriots in Armenia on April 12: `Russia will prevent any
aggressive intervention in the internal affairs of friendly countries
made under the pretext of planting ideas alien to our minds and
hearts.'
Russia's bear hug of Armenia is becoming more and more stifling. A
reporter at the news site ArmeniaNow, Naira Hayrumyan, writes in her
column on April 20, `The Russian leadership does not hide any longer
its intentions to completely absorb Armenia. One of the instruments of
this absorption may become the new Russian law simplifying the
granting of Russian passports to Russian-speaking citizens of other
states. As a condition for receiving a passport within three months,
the naturalized Russians have to renounce their original citizenship.
In Armenia there is already concern that migrant workers in Russia
will start giving up Armenian citizenship and acquire Russian
citizenship en masse. There is the same concern in relation to the
Armenian-populated Georgian region of Javakhk, where Russia is also
handing out passports.'
Incidentally, Javakhk has been attracting some political attention
recently. Britain's ambassadors to Armenia and Georgia have travelled
together to the territory to gauge the mood of local Armenians. Such
attention has been necessitated by the rumors that Russia is planning
to establish a land bridge connecting to Armenia and Iran over
Javakhk.
Moscow intends to resolve the Ukraine crisis by neutralizing it
politically and federalizing it in internally. Now the same intentions
are apparently aimed at Georgia. Moscow already controls South Ossetia
and Abkhazia. Should a separatist movement take root in Javakhk,
Russia can extend its savior's hands to Georgia, forcing it to adopt a
federal constitution to reabsorb the regions lost to Russia.
It is a farfetched scenario, which could have been achieved when Aslan
Abashidze in Ajaria challenged Saakashvili's central authority in
Tbilisi and Moscow defused the standoff by flying Abashidze to Moscow
to gain favors with Saakashvili, to no avail. At that time, the
Russians liquidated their military base in Javakhk, denying physical
and economic security for Armenians in that region.
As we can see, the Caucasus is a political puzzle whose pieces are not
yet all in place. US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar's
recent announcement to resolve the Karabagh crisis by asking Armenia
to return seven adjacent regions to Azerbaijan is another indication
of the new dynamism introduced in the region by outside forces.
It remains for the leadership of Armenia to navigate prudently through
all these choppy waters to assure a stable future for the country.
- See more at: http://www.mirrorspectator.com/2014/04/27/focus-on-the-caucasus/#sthash.ehOQTebf.dpuf
EDITORIAL | APRIL 27, 2014 10:56 PM
By Edmond Y. Azadian
The April 19 issue of London's Economist weekly features on its cover
Russia's map in the shape of a bear reaching out to Ukraine to swallow
it, having already digested Crimea. The cartoon is titled,
`Insatiable.'
The crisis in Ukraine has global and regional implications. The West
had pledged not to expand NATO by absorbing former satellite nations
of Eastern Europe but it has been moving inexorably to encircle
Russia, fueling a new Cold War.
On the other hand, Russia, under Vladimir Putin, is in a revanchist
mood to restore Moscow's old glory. Mr. Putin has stated that the
collapse of the Soviet Union was the most catastrophic event of the
20th century. The political atmosphere is somewhat similar to Germany
after World War I, when a humiliated country was clamoring to revive
and take its revenge. For that reason, the population was ready to go
to any lengths to restore what it saw as its national dignity.
Crimea's takeover and Moscow's aggressive posture on Ukraine's border
have boosted Putin's popularity domestically to 80 percent, despite
the country's economic woes.
This is the picture on the global plane. But Russia's newly-acquired
assertive policies impact heavily the neighboring regions, where
Armenia happens to be located.
By necessity, Armenia chose to join the Customs Union led by Moscow,
to be followed by the Eurasia Union, which aspires to become the
eastern counterpart of the European Union.
By switching its allegiance towards Russia, Armenia has alienated the
West and the fallout from that decision may show up in time gradually.
But Russia has already taken Armenia for granted and has been treating
Yerevan in a cavalier fashion ' not the behavior of a strategic
partner.
With all the external changes in the region, Armenia has undertaken
restructuring its government. Tigran Sargisian, a respected economist,
resigned his post as prime minister recently, to be replaced by Hovik
Abrahamyan, the former speaker of the parliament, a reliable partner
for Armenia's oligarchs.
After the final reshuffling of the entire cabinet, some facts may
emerge to demonstrate how much of the changes were owed to Moscow's
manipulations.
For the first time, there was consolidation within the ranks of the
opposition parties in Armenia, giving rise to the expectations that
the ruling Republican party may be loosening its grip on power.
One thing that is becoming obvious is that Armenia will be receiving
the short shrift in the emerging developments of the Caucasus. By
betting its future on the Russia, it is destined to fare on some rough
seas.
We read in the same issue of the Economist, `He [Putin] has claimed a
duty to intervene to protect Russian speakers wherever they are. ¦
That might be in Transdniestria, a slice of Moldova that has hosted
Russian troops since the early 1990s. Or Kazakhstan, which has a large
Russian population in the north. Or even the Baltic states, two of
which have large Russian-speaking minorities and all of them depend on
Russian gas.'
The West has been watching with alarm Russia's ambitions and will be
resorting to countermeasures to contain the awakening Russian bear. In
the process, many countries' destinies will be at risk in the ebb and
flow of this new Cold War.
Armenia is safely in Russia's court, for better or worse. Thus far,
Russia has remained insensitive to its strategic partner's priorities,
rendering that alliance into a one-way street.
Instead of showcasing its allies as prosperous countries benefitting
from their dependence on Moscow, Russia has been treating them
recklessly. Georgia took advantage of its dependence on the West by
improving its economy, curbing corruption, albeit at a scandalous
cost, thereby discouraging emigration and recently had a peaceful
transfer of power. Had former president Mikhail Saakashvili acted more
prudently, the country would also have avoided a territorial
amputation.
During a recent TV interview, Mr. Putin angrily chastised
Transdniestria's neighbors, Moldova and Ukraine, which have been
blockading that slice of territory of great interest to Moscow.
Conversely, Moscow has yet to utter a word against Turkey and
Azerbaijan, which have been blockading Armenia for the last two
decades, with devastating effects. On the contrary, Moscow has been
arming Azerbaijan at an alarming rate, allowing President Ilham Aliyev
to claim not only Karabagh, but all of Armenia itself as historic
Azeri land.
The Stockholm International Peace Institute reported recently that
between 2004 and 2014, Azerbaijan's military spending increased 493
percent. Azerbaijan's Defense Ministry has announced that Russia has
already sold to Azerbaijan more weapons than any other country,
including Turkey. This confirms President Aliyev's statement last
August that Russian-Azerbaijani defense contracts are `measured at $4
billion and tend to grow.'
Why is Azerbaijan being armed at this rate and at whom are those
weapons pointed?
On the one hand, Baku is buying Israel's drones and cooperating with
the West to contain Iran and on the other hand, Russia is spoiling
Baku's leadership to control that country's energy resources and to
keep it on a short leash politically.
Within this scenario, the Russian military base in Armenia receives
academic significance as much as its defense is concerned. And there
has never been an ironclad public pronouncement about its use to
defend Armenia and Karabagh. It becomes more and more apparent that
the base is more of a tool to sustain Moscow's regional policies
rather than protect Armenia.
We have yet to analyze and digest a statement by the Russian
Ambassador to Armenia Ivan Volynkin at the seventh Forum of Russian
Compatriots in Armenia on April 12: `Russia will prevent any
aggressive intervention in the internal affairs of friendly countries
made under the pretext of planting ideas alien to our minds and
hearts.'
Russia's bear hug of Armenia is becoming more and more stifling. A
reporter at the news site ArmeniaNow, Naira Hayrumyan, writes in her
column on April 20, `The Russian leadership does not hide any longer
its intentions to completely absorb Armenia. One of the instruments of
this absorption may become the new Russian law simplifying the
granting of Russian passports to Russian-speaking citizens of other
states. As a condition for receiving a passport within three months,
the naturalized Russians have to renounce their original citizenship.
In Armenia there is already concern that migrant workers in Russia
will start giving up Armenian citizenship and acquire Russian
citizenship en masse. There is the same concern in relation to the
Armenian-populated Georgian region of Javakhk, where Russia is also
handing out passports.'
Incidentally, Javakhk has been attracting some political attention
recently. Britain's ambassadors to Armenia and Georgia have travelled
together to the territory to gauge the mood of local Armenians. Such
attention has been necessitated by the rumors that Russia is planning
to establish a land bridge connecting to Armenia and Iran over
Javakhk.
Moscow intends to resolve the Ukraine crisis by neutralizing it
politically and federalizing it in internally. Now the same intentions
are apparently aimed at Georgia. Moscow already controls South Ossetia
and Abkhazia. Should a separatist movement take root in Javakhk,
Russia can extend its savior's hands to Georgia, forcing it to adopt a
federal constitution to reabsorb the regions lost to Russia.
It is a farfetched scenario, which could have been achieved when Aslan
Abashidze in Ajaria challenged Saakashvili's central authority in
Tbilisi and Moscow defused the standoff by flying Abashidze to Moscow
to gain favors with Saakashvili, to no avail. At that time, the
Russians liquidated their military base in Javakhk, denying physical
and economic security for Armenians in that region.
As we can see, the Caucasus is a political puzzle whose pieces are not
yet all in place. US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Richard Morningstar's
recent announcement to resolve the Karabagh crisis by asking Armenia
to return seven adjacent regions to Azerbaijan is another indication
of the new dynamism introduced in the region by outside forces.
It remains for the leadership of Armenia to navigate prudently through
all these choppy waters to assure a stable future for the country.
- See more at: http://www.mirrorspectator.com/2014/04/27/focus-on-the-caucasus/#sthash.ehOQTebf.dpuf