The leader of Armenia repeats the mistakes of Saakashvili, Shevardnadze and Elchibey
“An old friend is better than two new ones” — especially if these new “friends” are not really friends. Someone tell the Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan about this. After all, Nikol Vovaevich himself is so carried away by his political flirtation with the West that he does not notice how this “romance” is very costly for his country. News that became known to MK from informed sources: after talking with Western politicians at the Munich Conference in February, Pashinyan agreed to their request to transfer four border villages in the Tavush region to Azerbaijan — to transfer just like that, out of the kindness of his heart, without demanding or asking for anything in return .
Local residents of this Tavush region, as you know, did not appreciate the “emotional impulse” of the Armenian prime minister. Even Pashinyan’s ultimatum demands, saturated with emotions, built on the postulate, did not help: either you immediately agree and do as I say, or a new war will begin in a few days! The bluff didn't work. Or should I say: it hasn’t worked yet? Considering the direction in which Russian-Armenian relations are developing (and what are they developing — they are degrading!), this precaution is far from superfluous.
The Speaker of the Armenian Parliament, Alen Simonyan, spoke about Russia a few days ago: “We had a friend, an ally, as they like to say, an older brother, who, when the time came to protect us, at least left us alone, if not to say, that everything happened with his knowledge. They deceived us more than once, and then they tried to drag us into a new war on the territory of Armenia, in order to then “save” us in a specific situation and throw a collar on the statehood of Armenia.” Notice this wording: “we had a friend.” If a friend “was”, then now, it turns out, we are no longer talking about any such “friendship”? It turns out that it is so.
High-ranking Armenian politicians have never spoken about Russia in such a tone before. But if we talk about the South Caucasus region as a whole, then there is nothing new in such rhetoric. The then President of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili about Russia, 2010, interview with Belarusian TV: “It’s difficult to understand what they want. We always wanted to meet halfway, but all the time when we gave in something, they wanted more and more… The new generation will no longer understand what kind of Russia it is and where it is.”
Saakashvili’s predecessor as President of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, speaks about Russia already in the status of a political pensioner, 2007: “In 2014, Russia plans to hold the Olympic Games in Sochi, next to the zone of the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict. This zone was annexed by Russia. Just as the Soviet Union was punished in 1980, Russia should also be punished if it does not resolve the issues of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.” Unfortunately, due to lack of time, I could not find a verbatim reproduction of how Abulfaz Elchibey, who held the post of President of Azerbaijan in 1992-1993, spoke about Russia. But his attitude towards our country is perfectly illustrated by two actions. Arriving in Moscow in 1992 on an official visit and knowing the Russian language perfectly, Elchibey communicated only through an interpreter. And in a congratulatory telegram to Tatarstan President Mintimer Shaimiev, the then Azerbaijani leader hinted at “colonial oppression.”
Why all this historical research? Moreover, the current actions of Pashinyan and his team fit well into the strategic mistakes of the three politicians listed above. Quote from the book of political scientist Farid Shafiyev, “The Geopolitical Landscape of Azerbaijan,” published in 2020 in Prague: “The president’s foreign policy consisted of an attempt to point out the Russian threat to the West. The driving force behind this desire was the desire…to prevent Russia’s aggressive political steps and distance it from Azerbaijan.” Let’s compare this with the current statements of the same Alen Simonyan that Armenia was allegedly “forced” into the integration structures created by Russia. Let’s compare and we can safely play “find the three differences.”
And no, this is not an attempt to offend or insult the current Armenian leaders. This is simply a fact-based attempt to predict how their current political course might end. Elchibey ruined his country, led it to a humiliating military defeat and fell like a swallow from the presidency long before the end of his official term of office. Shevardnadze was able to hold out as president much longer than Elchibey. But everything else in the previous sentence applies to him 100%. At the time of his return, with Russian support, to the post of leader of Georgia in 1992, Shevardnadze was a world-famous politician, the owner of enormous moral and political capital. At the time of his forced resignation in 2003, Eduard Amvrosievich was a political bankrupt, a symbol of helplessness, incompetence and corruption. As for the fate of Mikheil Saakashvili, I won’t even mention it. Why repeat once again what everyone already knows?
Now let’s play “find three differences” again: both the political course of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and the political course of the shadow leader of Georgia Bidzina Ivanishvili are based on pragmatic relations with Moscow and the absence of Russophobic rhetoric. This in no way prevents Baku and Tbilisi from building their relations with the West — and without unilateral concessions. Nikol Pashinyan now has a choice: either he (and Armenia along with him) learns from the mistakes of others, or he (and Armenia again along with him) learns from his own miscalculations and mistakes. There is no third.