Moscow (AsiaNews) - Relations between Russia and Armenia have recently reached an unprecedented level of tension, considering Yerevan's historical gratitude to the empire that saved at least part of the Armenians from genocide, and that allowed for a rather peaceful coexistence even in Soviet times, when the Armenian republic remained one of the most impervious to socialist Russification.
A well-known Russian political scientist, Professor Dmitry Trenin, a member of the Kremlin's Russian Council for International Affairs, commented on this situation in Novosti-Armenia.
In several interviews, the expert argued that the West is unable to compensate for the size of Armenia's security system, which has always been provided by Russia. Armenians, moreover, believe that it is precisely Russia that has caused this system to collapse in recent years, by failing to protect Armenia from Azerbaijan during the Nagorno Karabakh clashes, thus failing in its commitments as an ally, while the Russians fear that the Yerevan government's swaying may bring NATO contingents onto Armenian territory, triggering another very serious crisis.
Trenin recalls that Armenia's victory in the first Karabakh war in 1994, under very favourable conditions, was made possible precisely by Russia's support. In the almost thirty years that followed, before the new Azerbaijani war, the Russians did everything they could to resolve every reason for conflict by diplomatic means, and it seemed that the parties were close to an agreement, but 'it is not Russia's fault that this was then blown'. In his opinion, the Armenians refused to take advantage of the many opportunities offered to them by Moscow before 2020.
Currently, without wishing to bring up the past, 'the potential dangers for Armenia come from Azerbaijan and Turkey', and according to the political scientist, 'if the United States were to take care of this, there would certainly not be columns of Turkish tanks at the borders, but Armenia would still be forced to bow to Turkey's interests'. All this would be presented as 'a strengthening of peace and stability in the region', and the Americans would vouch for this by saying they 'want to help Armenia's economic progress'.
On the other hand, one has to take into account Armenia's internal political instability, such as the emergence of a new popular opposition movement, the 'Tavowš in the name of the Fatherland' led by Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, in which many are reacting against the continued surrender to neighbouring countries. There could then be a change in the country's leadership, 'either through elections or a popular uprising', and then Armenia would no longer find allies in the West; the US would step aside, and Azerbaijan and Turkey would be free to deal with an insurgent Armenian government on their own. According to the political scientist, 'there would probably not be a major conflict, but there would be new pressure and military action in various parts of Armenia and its borders'.
The interview warns that 'there would also be those who expect help from Iran', which would resent the growth of Turkish influence in the region, which is already considerable. So far Tehran maintains a non-hostile attitude to Ankara, but even this balance could be broken, due to Iran's allergy to any form of alliance with the Americans (via Turkey) and Israel (via Azerbaijan), even though 'Iran has much bigger problems to solve than the status of Armenia'. Trenin does not believe that 'the only alternative is to make Armenia a vassal of Russia', both because that would be impossible and because no one in Russia really wants that; the important thing for Moscow is that 'another unfriendly front is not formed, allowing geopolitical adversaries to swallow Armenia'.
Photo: Flickr/Alexanyan
