After September 3, the political configuration formed before that became more distinct.
1) Power, which, in my opinion, has been seriously kinked in orientations of foreign policy. If we understood the policy merely with regard to ‘MacViavel’ as a range of intrigues, then, of course, we can speak about successes and failures in extorting something from Russia or the EU. But the matter, here, is deeper: the matter is about facing the challenges of the 21st century, something that our authorities are not ready, remaining on the level of Soviet corrupted nomenclature of thinking of 70’s.
2 ) The forces gathered around the first and second presidents with very respectable Information Resources led by them. There is also a contradiction in the behavior of these forces: on the one hand, they are unsparingly, often justifiably, criticize the government, sometimes spiced with personal abuses, but after September 3, they did not speak clearly against Armenia’s joining the Customs Union, not willing to stir Russia’s discontent. In this respect, certain consensus exists between them and the authorities. In this regard Serzh Sargsyan is supported by a variety of other individuals and groups, Ashot Manucharyan, Aram Karapetyan, communists and others.
3) The forces that criticize the government mildly for other issues, but are strongly against the Customs Union, and, generally, be given to Russians so “distractedly.” These are the “Heritage”, “Republic”, restructured PANM, “Free Democrats”, and others.
Read also
This group of parties and individuals, by the way, is subjected to frequent attacks by the second group of the parties which are confident that this group are “incognito agents.”
The “misfortune” of the third group is in its being small, limited resources compared to the first two and the lack of the social base, because the overwhelming majority of our people wishes to live “under Russian’s shade.”
I do not specifically use a ‘pro-Russian’, ‘pro-western’ severe conventional definitions. Because the root of the problem, I repeat, is not in the matter who appoints the President of Armenia, it is done be Russia since 1996, but it is not a fact that we will flourish, if it is done by the United States. The matter is also not as to which country’s troops are stationed here, or to whom Zori Balayan sends the next letter. These are all consequences. And, the cause is in our thinking, in us.
In particular, it seems to me that we were led by wrong and outdated notions of the concept “security guarantees”. We keep thinking that the tank, ” Smerch” or “Iskander” are security guarantees.”
In short, if I walk along the street with a gun in my pocket, my life, thus, will become more secure. In fact, security, in my opinion, especially in the 21st century, is what you could create in your life, or in case of the state, on your land.
Let’s suppose a fantastic thing: Russian leadership obeying Zori Balayan’s strong requests, ultimately realizes how bad the Turks are, attacks on Turkey and returns Armenia its historical lands. What should we do with these historic lands? What we do in Armenia, in Karabakh and in the occupied territories? If we can not do anything, maybe, in this case, we do not need Western Armenia. Maybe the security is also unnecessary.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
