YEREVAN-STYLE "FRIENDSHIP"

The balance of relations" with the Customs Union created by Russia and the European Union remains one of the most hotly debated topics in Armenia. Moreover, the debate is taking place not only in the media and in the "expert community". A few days ago, asked by MP Khachatur Kokobelyan whether he continues to believe that the Customs Union and the EU do not contradict each other, Armenian Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan said that Armenia's political position has not changed and that Armenia has always regarded the political processes between the Customs Union and EU as complementary. "As for the documents, they may contain provisions that will contradict each other, and this, of course, implies that we should be able to smooth out these shortcomings through negotiations," the prime minister said while speculating on the diversification of external relations and so on. "We have been open and public with the EU, Russia and the US, and therefore, the reasons for our decision are clear to them. Another question is that there are political forces who claim that it is necessary to give preference to European, not Eurasian integration. One can cite dozens of arguments both in favour of and against it, but our goal is to continue both of these processes," the prime minister said.

In Armenia, the arguments that the country does not contrast its relations with Europe with its ties with Russia and intends to pursue a policy on the principle of "both-and" have been heard for a long time. Another thing is that external partners also demand clarity from Armenia: the statements that it is high time for this country to define its foreign policy priorities and decide whether they are going to be members of the Eastern Partnership or join the Customs Union created by Russia have been heard since the beginning of 2013. In response, Yerevan resorted to the traditional arguments that the country is conducting a policy of "both-and" rather than "either-or". This arguments, however, did not really disguise Armenia's desire to extend the "political bargaining" to the maximum and wait for one of the external partners to offer more generous "gifts". In the case of the EU, these expectations were outlined quite clearly: a donor conference for Armenia, which was expected to raise 1.5bn dollars. Moreover, Serzh Sargsyan said at the Eastern Partnership forum that Europe must force Turkey to open its border on Yerevan's conditions. Russia was, and is still, expected to provide generous assistance in all areas - from military and political areas to generous bailouts and revival of the largest industrial enterprises, which often stand still due to economic unprofitability. Armenia does not even think about such "trifles" as internal customs prices for oil and gas.

One would think that after 3 September, when Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan expressed his country's intention to join the Customs Union, all this political game came to an end. But Yerevan continues to talk about its "European prospects" with enviable tenacity, although Europe has quite openly made it clear that Armenia should not expect "European gifts" after it announced its intention to join the Customs Union.

There are many indications that the current "Eurogames" are addressed to Moscow to make it clear that if Armenia does not get the expected "loyalty fee", they may still change their mind here. However, Russia is in no hurry to shower Armenia with special bounties. Moreover, it is not even clear how the agreements operating under the Customs Union will be implemented in relation to Armenia. This country, we recall, has no common border with any of the states that have joined (or want to join) the CU. Plus, as a sign of gratitude to Armenia, Moscow is in no hurry to wrap up its relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan. And oh my God, it even continues to sell weapons to Baku, including S-300, artillery systems and rapid fire installations.

Perhaps, we should not pay attention to Yerevan's disappointment or should advise Armenia to make a more sober assessment of its "geopolitical value". But the point is that they are trying to "correct Russia's policy" with very dangerous methods here. Some Yerevan politicians and political analysts openly suggest unleashing a campaign of terror against Russia, or more precisely, on its territory. Such an appeal, in particular, was made by one of the ideologists of Armenian separatists in Nagornyy Karabakh, Igor Muradyan, who termed entry into the Customs Union no more, no less Armenia's "isolation" from the outside world. And he delivered his own verdict: "Who are the Armenians - a vassal entity? Russia's mission in this case is to bring the scenario to the point of no return, that's to say to the moment when the international community gets used to and accepts the fact that Armenia is no longer on the political map of the world. Then they will be able to do anything with the Armenians (not to mention Armenia). By this time, a somewhat new regime will be established in Armenia, and it will consist of those who want to throw not only Karabakh but also Armenia under Russian boots. Everything is possible - certain actions and attempts to assert the rights of the country, a repeat of the events of 1977, that's to say explosions in the Moscow metro, but what can be changed?"

In the political biography of Muradyan, there were more outspoken calls for terror. Back in August 2010, Igor Muradyan, on the pages of the same Lragir, undertook to comment on the speculation that Russia is preparing to sell Azerbaijan S-300 missile complexes - the ones that were demonstrated a year later during a military parade on Freedom Square to mark the 20th anniversary of Azerbaijan's independence. Igor Muradyan wrote at the same time: "Several people have to sacrifice their lives for the motherland to be safe. The S-300 missile complexes must be destroyed either at the factory, during transportation or in the territory of Azerbaijan. This should have been done a long time ago, at least four years ago. Was it not possible to draw conclusions from the experience of the Chechen resistance ... no matter what happens in the future, if Russia does not get it in the neck for its dastardly steps, Armenia will not need to be a state." Regnum news agency reported the publication of this article in Lragir under the expressive headline: "Armenia calls for terrorist acts on the territory of Russia".

It must be remembered that the explosions in the Moscow metro are not the only "episode" of this kind. During the war with Azerbaijan (more precisely, after the beginning of the Armenian aggression against our country), Yerevan's security services organized terrorist attacks on passenger trains bound for and out of Baku, including on the territory of Russia. So they have some experience, not to mention its "historical depth".

And for the time being, Armenia is making its own "black list". As it turned out, the head of the Rossotrudnichestvo organization and adviser at the Russian embassy in Armenia, Viktor Krivopuskov, according to Yerevan "Westerners", "was engaged in persecuting Armenians in 'Artsakh' (our quotes hereinafter - editor) 23 years ago". More precisely, he took part in passport checks in Nagornyy Karabakh as one of the commanders of the Soviet Interior Troops. And now, to our outrage, "Krivopuskov has been working in Armenia for many years, though he should have been stripped even of the right to set foot on Armenian soil and should be brought to justice if he violates the ban." And he concluded: "Independent Armenia, apparently, needed a 'Nuremberg' on this issue, not necessarily with an execution, although it is hard to think of a more lenient sentence for many."

As is known, terror in the Armenian environment was very actively practiced not only against the governments of Turkey and Azerbaijan - an equally big "portion" of terror was also received by the citizens and governments of the countries whose policy the Armenians wheeler-dealers tried to "adjust" in this way. In the 1970's, it was the West European and US governments. Now, it seems, they want to "correct" Moscow's policies. 

In short, everything in Armenia is ready to begin a campaign of terror against Russia. Formally, of course, the opposition, not the authorities, is engaged in this, but Serzh Sargsyan, who shot without hesitation demonstrators protesting against the falsification of his "victorious" presidential election in 2003, is in no hurry to hold the same Muradyan to account, although calls for terror are punishable in most civilized countries. And it is also good food for thought, at what level Armenia is ready to use terrorist leverage against Russia.