Who makes the shadow on the fence, or on some publications on the topic of Russian-Armenian relations
Material posted: Publication date: 04-05-2013

Information "support" of Russia's policy in the South Caucasus and Russian-Armenian relations in particular, as is well known, very contradictory. In principle, it was okay in the end, we have freedom of speech, and each probably free to write whatever he pleases within its own perceptions of morality and decency (as well as current legislation).

On the other hand, it is impossible to abolish editorial policies of individual publications generated, as is known, in accordance with the ancient principle: "Who the girl has supper, that and dances it". Note also, the wording of the website is the least indiscriminate denial of mistakes, and often the failures of Russian policy in the Caucasus (and not only there). We wrote, write and will continue writing. However, criticism should not turn into its apparent opposite, namely, a banal distortion of facts, often based on different kinds of idle speculation, not substantiated by concrete facts.
In this context, draw attention to the publication of the Armenian Internet-the edition "lragir.am", reconstructed as honestly reported, at the expense of Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation – Armenia, in other words – through the Soros Foundation. Russia and its foreign and domestic policies are in constant focus of the site authors, some of whom are no doubt talented and experienced journalists and analysts. Some of them have been known to accuse Russian colleagues in insufficient knowledge of Armenian realities, and in some cases this is true. However, apparently, the opposite is true assumption. Because otherwise it's hard to explain, for example, the following passage, addressed to the Armenian Diaspora of Russia: "...if it Wants the continuation of Putin's rule, where you can live and earn outside the law, all the time fearing that will stop you on the street and have to make excuses for the tan? Or want to feel like a citizen of this great country where all are equal before the law?" The phrase, of course, scathing and appropriate for meeting some of the radical opposition (or people who consider themselves such), but asserting a false dilemma and, to put it mildly, inappropriate for the author, undertake to analyze really difficult (where are they?) Russian realities. Fans to spread "democratic snot" can be recommended to carefully read Brzezinski, who frankly says: "the doctrine of the global political awakening implies that the result of this revival is sure to be a democracy."
However, this "feast of the spirit" is found in articles covering various aspects of the regional policy of Russia. Policy, as we have already noted, is not free from faults and deficiencies, suffering from lack of consistency and a lot more than. The more surprising to read about Russia as some kind of aggressive monster that just pits the peoples of the Caucasus in their own interests and actually "turns" as the region wants. Don't believe?..
"Russia is manipulating region", "Russia admits military action between Azerbaijan and Armenia...", "Russia would like to bring Armenia to consent to a reconciliation with Azerbaijan, as a result of partial or complete and final loss of Karabakh...", "the Russians, as before, convinced in their impunity...", "Russia fully ignored the interests of Armenia in obtaining weapons...", "Russia's relations with Armenia have taken into account its relations with Azerbaijan, but not Vice versa...", "The Russians will soon bump their noses in shit and drowned by my own stupidity and mercenary behaviour". It a serious analyst or areal swearing? Not to mention the fact that sometimes this whole "stream of consciousness" – apparently for thrills – densely flavored insults towards the authors who adhere to other point of view, and is accompanied by hints of some secret knowledge, not available de mere mortals. Hints, I suppose, utterly untenable: details of contracts for the supply of certain weapons, in accordance with worldwide practices are closed to the public.
Moscow accused that she allegedly committed "to hand over to Azerbaijan the Karabakh Lowland and maintain long-term conflict situation"; "to send troops, under the guise of peacekeepers in the region"; "to exercise strategic control over both Armenia and Azerbaijan, integration of the armed forces of both States in its operational and military-technical system"; thus "to establish control over Georgia"; "undermining the NABUCCO pipeline". As you can see, all piled in a heap, and when reading such unscientific fiction, there are many questions, main of which: if not mistaken the author with the name of the country, about which he writes? Maybe he means the US, which is influential in political and information landscape not only of Armenia and its neighbors in the region, but also (unfortunately) Russia itself? In this case, a lot would stand on their seats or at least the reasoning of some would-be"analysts" would have had more logic. Or elementary coherence of reasoning and more is not required, the main thing is to pile up more stuff that "eats" gullible and disoriented the audience?
In this connection the question arises as to how the quarrel with Russia will help resolve the numerous problems of the Republic, which convincingly written by the Armenian media? How Moscow can force Yerevan to "surrender Lowland Karabakh", which is not Russian territory? How the disappearance of the "Russian factor" will strengthen the positions of Armenia and Karabakh in their competition? Or hands on "cunning, greedy and greedy Moscow" is explained by the known Russian proverb, lucidly explaining who most loudly shouts "hold the thief"?..
Armenia's foreign policy is multi-vector and balanced, and the advantage of this approach was pointed out by many serious researchers. So, political scientist Sergey Minasyan the article "Armenia's Foreign policy: twenty years of sitting on several chairs?" refers to the period of formation of the foreign policy of an independent Armenia, which coincided in the early 1990-ies: "...In the current regional context, taking into account the outbreak of the Karabakh war and the perception of the "Turkish threat", Armenia has established with Russia is extremely user friendly and even allied relations, especially in the security sphere. At the same time Armenia tried to use the support of the USA and European countries, thus partially compensating for the focus on Russia in security matters -- In the midst of the Karabakh war, using a unique foreign political developments, Yerevan received weapons and military equipment from the Russians, money for the development of the economy, Americans, food and humanitarian aid from the Europeans (until March 1993, even through the territory of Turkey), and fuel for the fighting army from Iran..." (the newspaper "Noah's Ark", № 23-24, December 2011) a New stage of complementarism, according to the author, began in the late 1990s, under President R. Kocharian, Yerevan giving the opportunity to balance the excessive influence of Moscow in regional processes, and Vice versa, – to deter the United States or Europeans at some point in the Karabakh negotiation process.
Thus, it is difficult (and foolish) to deny the importance for Armenia's contacts with the United States and the Western world. However, fans to denounce the "treacherous Russians" in various sins, projecting loosely interpreted the events of the beginning of the century to date, it would be appropriate to remind about the sad experience of the first Armenian Republic with the great European and American powers far. Recently David Ohanyan in his research "Stereotypes of Armenian historiography" has led some documents about the arrangements for delivery of U.S. humanitarian aid to Armenia, more like economic enslavement of the war-ravaged country. And Armenia (and its neighbors) is not an exception. At about the same time, as you know, the landing of foreign occupying troops in Arkhangelsk, in the South of Russia and in the far East becomes an important factor in the deployment of a bloody Civil war...
"The United States and France, in many respects, are partners in the "containment" of regional policy of Turkey... the Political leadership of Armenia must understand it, and by participating in this "project", it must receive the necessary support and assistance from interested world powers..." – we read in another publication in lragir.am. That's just where the author saw this "project" of Washington and Paris, supposedly aimed at "containment" of its NATO ally? It would be naive to expect that Western policy is fundamentally changed, and soon we will see more and more new evidence. Otherwise, the West would cease to be the West, he still struggles for resources and for influence, with reliable political organizational, financial, moral-ideological and (to dull) military technical tools. Methods to work with certain groups of elites in post-Soviet space for decades was perfected in Latin America, Africa, the middle East. Here only the results of this "work" have no relation not only to the well-being and economic development of local States and societies (including national and religious minorities), but also to ensure their basic security and survival. The "Arab spring", the consequence of which will be the demise of centuries-old Armenian communities in the middle East (primarily in Syria and Lebanon), and a new "dispersion" of the Armenian people all over the world, naturally leading to the growing regional ambitions of Ankara is "flowers". Planned military action against Iran are able to completely destabilize the region and become an important factor in the resumption of war in Nagorno-Karabakh. It is not a secret for anybody, except possibly the authors of the publication, compares with the Soros Foundation and other specific organizations. And in this situation the military-political and military-technical cooperation between Moscow and Yerevan is the most important factor of stability. This truth, which is an axiom for all serious researchers, cannot be shaken by any ratiocination or pseudoanalytical freaks.
Or the authors of provocative articles think that it's "greedy and greedy Moscow", "manipulating the region" (and also, probably, the world), is pushing Washington and its satellites for war against Iran?

Source: http://bs-kavkaz.org/2011/12/o-nekotoryh-publikaciah-na-temu-rossijsko-armyanskih-otnoshenij/

Tags: assessment , Russia , information war , CIS