Although the Armenian government and the parliamentary opposition regularly make serious accusations against each other, there are important issues where they seem to agree in principle. The recent events in Kazakhstan were clear proof of that. Both sides agree with the “Moscow” interpretation of those events. There was a wonderful situation and an equally flawless government, and suddenly the dark forces “injected” by the West, the terrorists, the criminals wanted to spoil that idolatry, they organized a “Maidan scenario” riot.
Well, if Putin thinks so, how many heads of our government and opposition are there to think differently? Their version of recent events on the Armenian border is also “united.” Accordingly, Turkey and Azerbaijan have not reconciled with the strong anti-Turanian strike of the Eurasian bloc and are now trying to take revenge. It must be said that our “pro-Western” opposition also makes rather primitive comments.
In this way, Pashinyan’s rule is, of course, a miracle of miracles, but perhaps it was not necessary to send troops to suppress the democratic movement in Kazakhstan.
These two pro-Russian “pro-government” and pro-Western “pro-government” approaches, although understandable in terms of interests, are methodologically flawed. They are based on the following assumptions: a) in the world, except for the irreconcilable struggle of Russia and the West, there is no other factor, a driving force, that does not synchronize their steps in the issue.
Read also
However, it can not be unconditionally claimed that the mass protests in Kazakhstan are the result of provocations exclusively by the West and some terrorists. (No one in Armenia has yet made a serious and comprehensive analysis of Kazakhstan’s internal processes). It is not clear that the Kremlin was completely satisfied with Nazarbayev’s regime. It is difficult to agree that the West is interested in the implementation of the “Great Turan” program, it is much more likely that Washington, Brussels and Moscow agree on countering it. Besides, nothing is said about the important, strong and interested player, China, in the primitive schemes of Armenia. Finally, Azerbaijan has many other reasons for aggression besides the events in Kazakhstan.
Politicians, of course, can assert their “black-and-white truths” in a confident tone. But if people want to understand the variety of factors, then these “Manichaeism” texts are not enough.
Aram Abrahamyan
