The fact that Putin pats Nikol Pashinyan on the back in a friendly or familiar manner during a conversation with Pashinyan and Tokayev is by no means a “notarial seal” certifying the warmth of their relationship. Today he pats him on the back; tomorrow, he could just as easily stab him in the back. And this is not something that applies only to Putin. Essentially, it applies to all geopolitical power centers. It is therefore important to state one thing clearly: relying on the leader of any geopolitical power center, boasting about one’s close relationship with that leader, or building any political calculations on the basis of such a relationship is a sign of political ignorance or political incompetence.
This does not mean at all that these people lack the ability or the capacity to build human relationships. The point is that people who occupy leadership positions at these power centers simply cannot afford to be guided by the principles of personal relationships. The scope and depth of their influence and responsibility, their commitments and obligations, encompass such a vast domain—including, for example, thousands of nuclear warheads and their fate—that individual human lives can very easily become secondary in their calculations.
Incidentally, for those who reach such positions and levels of power, and assume commitments and responsibilities on this scale, this is, in a sense, even a human or personal tragedy—or at the very least, an immense psychological burden, even if they have chosen it entirely of their own free will. That is why, in such positions, “many are called, but few are chosen.” It goes without saying that the terms “called” and “chosen” are used here in a strictly metaphorical sense.
Thus, Putin’s familiar pat on Pashinyan’s back offers him no guarantees whatsoever, just as the chemistry between the former Armenian president and Putin, which the former spoke about years ago, offered no guarantees either. Broadly speaking, for countries like Armenia, perhaps the strongest safeguard for figures who hold or have held positions of state leadership is to ensure that the question of power never reaches the point where it becomes a “life-or-death” dilemma. Incidentally, this is also the minimum guarantee of security and viability for the state, preserving the greatest possible flexibility as it navigates the complex corridors of international politics.
Hakob BADALYAN
