What future does Pashinyan prepare for Armenia?
On the objectivity of the historical process and the personality factor
You know, in the world stories There is an objective logic of the processes taking place, conditioned by previous events, where the factor of personality, even an outstanding one, plays, yes, an important, but subordinate role. Let's say that the Greco-Macedonian expansion into the Middle East in the XNUMXth century was inevitable and was determined by objective factors - primarily economic, like everything else in the world.
Yes, Alexander gave it a grandiose and almost epic not only military, but also cultural scope, but one way or another it would have happened anyway. Sooner or later. And even, in a sense, it was carried out before the famous invasion: take the campaign of Xenophon’s ten thousand - his Anabasis (if I’m not mistaken, studied in military schools in many countries). It took place almost seventy years before Alexander crossed the Hellespont and represented a kind of rehearsal for the invasion that crushed the Achaemenid power.
There are many examples of this kind. And it is not necessary to go deep into hoary antiquity to search for them: the Second World War was directly a consequence of the unresolved problems of the previous four-year massacre (it is no coincidence that Hitler found support among the broadest layers of the German people). And it itself was a direct and inevitable consequence of the proclamation of the German Empire in the Hall of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles on January 18, 1871. But.
Accidentally warmed up by glory
But there are events in history, on the contrary, that occur contrary to the logic of obvious and at first glance inevitable processes. They are determined solely by the factor of the individual - either ahead of his era (with a certain degree of caution one can call Ivan the Terrible one, who thought in categories characteristic of the time of Peter I, despite the fact that his opponents, including Kurbsky, perceived the changed political realities in the same paradigm as the princes of pre-Mongol Russia, and saw in the monarch only the first among equals), or, on the contrary, accidental in power and short-sighted.
N. Pashinyan, with his initiation of the ratification of the Rome Statute of the ICC, directed against the interests of his own country, belongs to the second category here. And it is quite possible to correlate with it the famous Pushkin: Accidentally warmed by fame.
But okay, the still restless Nikol would simply bask in its rays. No, he stubbornly and puffingly pushes the small republic that naively trusted him into the maelstrom of the Great Game that has found its second wind (a term coined in 1840 by the captain of the 6th Bengal Light Horse Regiment, Arthur Conolly, and implying the confrontation between the Russian and British empires in the struggle for Central Asia) , in which Armenia has every chance of drowning.
For Nikol Vovaevich is in a hurry to push away the hand supporting her fragile palm, either with an interview in an anti-Russian tone (and no one pulled his tongue), or with a provocative speech in the European Parliament, or by initiating the ratification of the aforementioned statute. And, by the way, the contemptuous attitude of the Yankees themselves towards the Hague “assessors” is well known.
By the way, it is the same for other leading world players: China, India, Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia, which is gaining geopolitical weight. Some of the Armenian officials, however, immediately stated after the ratification of the statute that the Russian president would not face arrest if he visited their republic, since the leaders of the countries have diplomatic immunity.
Yes, those in N. Pashinyan’s very circle draw the attention of their Russian partners, who are hardly likely to be, to Yerevan’s desire to accept the statute quite a long time ago, before the ridiculous charges were brought against V.V. Putin and in order to bring Azerbaijan and Turkey to justice.
But precisely against the backdrop of the legal insignificance of the statute, due to its ignorance by the leading world powers, due to the undoubted bias of the “judges” and in the context of real events, the decision of the prime minister generated by social networks should be considered precisely as political and anti-Russian.
For it reflects the interests of the United States in the Transcaucasus and fits into the logic of the White House strategy: to quarrel between Moscow and Yerevan through the current Armenian caliph, but for an hour. Despite the fact that it seems that no one in Armenia wants a break with Russia, except Nikol himself and a handful of his supporters hanging around in the largest American embassy after Baghdad. No, the prime minister also tried to bring appropriate arguments: from his point of view, the reformatting of Armenia’s foreign policy course is due to the inability of the CSTO to ensure the security of the republic, just as the status of the Armenian-Russian partnership does not correspond to it.
The paradox here is precisely the opposite: only the CSTO and partnership with Russia are able to guarantee the survival of Armenia as an independent state, not to mention the significant preferences that Yerevan receives from the union with us.
Regarding preferences. I will mention just a few: the absence of duties on oil and gas (for the text of the relevant document, see link), just as we should not forget about Russian investments in the economy of Armenia, the importance of which was recently emphasized by N. Pashinyan himself (about investments).
The anti-Armenian orientation of the prime minister’s latest initiatives may also affect the next significant for the economy of the small republic (constituent):
As a counter-argument, they can give me the possibility of Armenia receiving investments from abroad, and in particular from the United States. However, this is unlikely to happen due to the crisis in the American economy itself, especially against the backdrop of increasingly frequent talk about returning the “citadel of democracy” to the times of the Great Depression.
In addition, the White House’s very interest in Armenia is not at all determined by the desire to implement something like the Transcaucasian Marshall Plan in relation to it. This does not exist in nature and is unlikely to be foreseen, although at the beginning of this millennium the West floated around with similar ideas: there was even a German Marshall Fund “Germany - USA”, which was engaged in anti-Russian activities.
No, the White House’s interest is driven by the desire to expand the scope of the concept (it is incorrect to call it a theory) of controlled chaos, which has long been implemented along the perimeter of the Russian border. And Americans in Transcaucasia cannot find a better figure than N. Pashinyan for such an anti-Russian and anti-Armenian strategy.
And pay attention, during difficult periods of Russian history, we almost always either had something like a second front in Transcaucasia (Russian-Turkish War of 1877–1878, World War I), or, as in the Great Patriotic War, we faced the threat of it occurrence. Let me remind you: the latter forced I.V. Stalin to keep 1941 divisions on the territory of the Transcaucasian Military District (transformed into a front at the beginning of the war), even in the most difficult year for us in 25.
Towards the end, a few words about the personality of N. Pashinyan himself.
Its factor could lead to a redrawing of the map of Transcaucasia and give rise to processes that could spread to the post-Soviet space of Central Asia, and the circles from which would spread from Tibet to the Mediterranean, if not further.
First of all, Nikol Vovaevich is a prime minister without a political background and who found himself on the crest of a wave thanks to protest sentiments, that is, the emotions of the crowd, and not as a result of cabinet intrigues. And people like him (Zelensky, Sandu, the already forgotten Tikhanovskaya, etc.) bury the principles of Realpolitik once formulated by O. Bismarck, or rather turn out to be toys in the hands of those who adhere to them.
Politics, as the art of the possible, as a complex intellectual game, has nothing to do with N. Pashinyan. He is not the one playing, they are being played. And they can, if anything, sacrifice – not himself, of course, but his political future; however, for the prime minister, in case he receives the prefix “ex”, a hefty barrel of jam and a large basket of cookies have already been prepared.
What about a political career? Can we call it one that fits into three words: demagoguery, rallies and scandal? And yes, still running to the aforementioned American embassy.
Everyday creative activity aimed at the economic well-being of his own country and ensuring its security is not typical of N. Pashinyan. Just as routine creative activity was not characteristic of, say, Charles XII. Only the restless king, at a certain stage of his military career, brought glory to the Swedish arms, and the prime minister brings only grief and tears to his own people.
What next, Nikol, will you drive an aspen stake into the chest of sovereign Armenia?
Bocharov A. V. Historiographical and methodological aspects of using the concept of “chance” in the study of historical alternatives
Ermalavichyus Yu. Yu. Objective logic of history and modernity
Zubov V.V. The German doctrine of “Realpolitik” through the prism of world politics
- Hodakov Igor
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.