Share :

Download PDF :

Lragir, Aug 1 2017

Haikazn Ghahriyan, Editor-in-Chief

The tough policy of the United States on Russia has brought up questions in the Armenian public on the appropriateness of the presence of Armenia in the pro-Russian blocs, the Russian-Turkish rapprochement.

In particular, parallels are drawn at the developments of the 1920s when the two defeated in war and collapsed empires, Russia and Turkey, lent a hand to each other to prevent the influence of the West on the region and to divide the region. As a result, the Armenian state was eliminated, the Armenian territories were handed to Turkey and Azerbaijan, the Russian-Turkish troops completed the massacres and displacement of the Western Armenia in the territory of Armenia taken over by Russia. About 300,000 Armenians were killed and 500,000 Armenians were displaced to the inlands of Russia.

Eventually, the Russian-Turkish status quo lasted for about 100 years. It was broken through in the first war in Karabakh when the Armenian armed forces established the new borders.

Currently, Turkey and Russia are in almost similar international situations, in noticeable isolation and blockade. Despite several incidents, Russia and Turkey are trying to set up close relations and not to allow the growth of influence of the United States and the West in the region and the change of the one-hundred-year-old status quo.

Russia arms not only Azerbaijan but also Turkey, and this fact is another reason to compare the current period with the events of the 1920w when Russia provided weapons and wheat to the Turkish army. It is noted that in this situation both countries can resolve their problems in prejudice to the interests of Armenia.

Are these comparisons appropriate in new times? In fact, there is similarity between the situations, including the current process for a “new world order”. Besides, Turkey has figured out, especially after the downing of the Russian jet and the murder of the Ambassador, that it has a big value for Russia and is now trying to have a say.

Nonetheless, everything is not so equivocal, and the concerns about the recurrence of history are appropriate unless they conduct an adequate policy. History repeats in the case of the peoples who reject the path of creating their own destiny, their own vital territory and state building. For example, when Armenia still thinks that the formula “land for status” is acceptable, history will repeat.

The same historical experience shows that Armenia is growing and becoming stronger after Russia “leaves”. This was the case in 1918 and 1991. Armenia should state Russia’s “presence” from the point of view of its own interests and role, helping them to leave with dignity.