PLAYING WITH ELECTRICITY

Perhaps many people remember the historic phrase of the "Iron Chancellor" of Germany Otto von Bismarck: "Revolutions are conceived by intellectuals, executed by fanatics and the fruit of their labour is used by freeloaders". Nowadays though, as we observe colour revolutions in different corners of the world, we can say that they are conceived by those who use their fruit and executed by zombified masses of people guided by well-trained agent provocateurs. I wonder how the "Iron Chancellor" of Germany would define the actions of present-day Armenia's leadership who have invented something new, namely a method for manipulating their strategic allies by staging a colour revolution in their own country. The latest developments in Yerevan, the so-called "Electric Maidan" is nothing other than an off-beat attempt to blackmail the Kremlin by suggesting that Armenia may rush into the embraces of the West. To have a clearer picture, let us restore the timeline of what happened. 

Everything started after the country's Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamyan made a statement on 9 June about a price rise for electricity by 6.93 drams (16 per cent). This was concluded by the Public Services Regulatory Commission of Armenia. 

A meeting of the commission was scheduled for 17 June. On that very day, the Dashnaktsutyun student union held a protest that ended in clashes and arrests of activists. 

By 19 June, protests spread from Yerevan to the cities of Gyumri and Vanadzor. The mass protests have been dubbed "Vonch Talanin" ("No to Plunder"). Some 6,000 people gathered in the capital of Armenia who were going to move towards the presidential residence if the Regulatory Commission's decision was not cancelled. The action became infinite, field kitchens and tents appeared. Added to the demands was the call to nationalize the energy sector of Armenia (the Electric Networks of Armenia closed joint stock company is 100 per cent owned by Russia's Inter RAO). 

The country's President Serzh Sargsyan suggested that the demonstrators should choose four or five activists to meet and negotiate with. However the rally participants refused to negotiate saying that their demands are clear enough as they are.

On 23 June, the protesters were dispersed with the use of water cannons. At least 237 people landed in police stations and were released later that day. 

Like at the early stage of the Euro-Maidan in Kiev in autumn 2013, the law-enforcers' actions in Yerevan made the protest even more angry and massive. The number of protesters increased to about 10,000 people on the evening of 23 June. Having blocked Baghramyan Avenue where government buildings are located, they were building barricades from trash containers. 

Perhaps at that point some quite interesting processes got under way that are not characteristic of Armenia's political life. The law-enforcement bodies not merely made no attempt to do something against the protesters but, on the contrary, their conduct became rather polite and one could even hear apologetic notes in statements by senior officers of the power wielding structures. 

The demonstrators were supported by representatives of Armenian show business and the country's political elite. They formed a human barrier between the police and the protesters. It is noteworthy that not a single representative of opposition political parties was spotted on Baghramyan Avenue. It also looked rather strange that the incumbent authorities had absolutely no stance on what was going on. 

The president and government representatives kept long and stubborn silence, possibly waiting for something. Meanwhile, statements started coming from representatives of the diaspora. For example, Serj Tankian, a notorious US rock musician of Armenian origin, all of a sudden discovered an economic talent in himself and demanded that all energy companies transferred to Russia a long time ago should be nationalized. Diplomatic missions of Western countries and European structures voiced their habitual "concerns". Sargsyan himself was looking as if he had taken a vow of silence and, despite the complicated political situation in his country, he decided to go on a visit to Belgium and take part in a summit of Europe's democratic parties held on 25 June. That was a rather strange move which could have been motivated only by the opportunity to talk to representatives of the Western world. Only after his return did Sargsyan comment on the events going on in the centre of Yerevan. He did so during his meeting with Maksim Sokolov, Russia's Transport Minister and co-chairman of the intergovernmental commission for economic cooperation between the Republic of Armenia and the Russian Federation. 

All that started from the Armenian president denying the anti-Russian character of the Yerevan Maidan. Later on, he tried to justify the decision to raise electricity prices pleading inflation of the national currency and placing emphasis on the fact that Russia is Armenia's number one investor. (In other words, Russia owns all of Armenia's sectors having at least some degree of economic attractiveness.) Sargsyan approached the main point voicing the idea that it is in the interests of the Armenian leadership to protect the Kremlin's investments and it would be right for Russia to view this issue from the standpoint of its companies' social responsibility. He said it would be a timely step to audit, involving experts and civil society representatives, the entire activity of the Electric Networks of Armenia closed joint stock company, a subsidiary of Inter RAO. If the audit finds out that the price rise was ungrounded, it may be decided to nationalize the power networks. For the time being, the government will be covering the price difference. But from what sources? They will certainly use a new Russian loan of 200m dollars given for buying Russian military equipment. Officially the head of Armenia has received from Russia the go-ahead to hold an international check and the above-said loan. One more "candy" is the handover of the case of the murder by Russian military serviceman Valeriy Permyakov of seven persons in Gyumri. This "reflects the spirit of partnership and brotherhood" in Russian-Armenian relations.

Participants of the Yerevan protest had excited reactions when celebrating their "victory" but when the first euphoria subsided they thought about the consequences of their actions. The action initiative group left Baghramyan Avenue, moved to Freedom Square and then left it too. The number of those who remained was gradually shrinking and, at the time of writing this article, only some marginal elements were still on Baghramyan Avenue.  

The Yerevan Maidan has sputtered out or calmed down but left behind a lot of questions. The central one is what it was and who needed it.

It is certainly no secret that the Armenian people are tired of the plunder that has only intensified since the Karabakh clan came to power. Practically everybody knows about the disastrous situation in the country's economy where all the sectors have been either sold to foreign (mostly Russian) companies or concentrated in the hands of a handful of oligarchs "doing business" like in the heyday of crime in the 1990s. It is common knowledge that Russian companies are mainly involved in shady schemes and collusion with Armenia's upper crust. Electricity rates in Armenia are much higher than in many CIS countries. Meanwhile, shortly before the events in Yerevan, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources of Armenia Yervand Zakharyan said that the Vorotan Cascade of Hydroelectric Power Plants would be sold to the US company Contour Global Hydro Cascade for 182m dollars. Furthermore, the Armenian government agreed to the Americans raising the rates by 166 per cent over the next three to four years. But this information somehow failed to stir up outrage among the public. On the contrary, the news was taken calmly and even positively in a way.

From the very beginning of the mass protests, representatives of the Armenian community, especially those closely associated with Russia, tried to convince everyone that the actions were of a purely economic nature, and that any anti-Russian sentiments were out of the question. However, except for the Armenian "analysts", everyone began to compare and find similarities between the events in Yerevan and the colour revolutions. In fairness it must be said that there were plenty of factors for such conclusions. First, the West is not averse to create another source of instability near the Russian borders and organize yet another coup in the space of the former Soviet Union with the coming to power of political forces having plainly Russophobic views. Many would recall the events in the Armenian city of Gyumri at the beginning of the year, when the murder of an Armenian family caused a spiral of tension and mass riots accompanied by the demand "Russians, out!" One would also recall a visit to Armenia of Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a "godmother" of colour revolutions, and her meetings behind closed doors with representatives of Armenian NGOs. The desire of the West to organize a colour revolution in Armenia was recently exposed by Paul Craig Roberts, a US columnist and one of the advisers to former US President Ronald Reagan. Armenian journalists even found the financial cashier of the "Maidan" - Levon Barseghian, a journalist from Gyumri, who reportedly received 10m drams from US Ambassador to Armenia Richard Mills "for the needs of democracy". Essentially similar and vulgarly directed scenes of distributing food products to protesters and flowers to policemen with a false Hollywood smile, characteristic gestures and behaviour during the dispersal of the crowd with water cannons - all of the above factors reinforced the hypothesis of those who obstinately wished to see the machinations of the West behind Yerevan's Maidan.

It is undeniable that Western structures have played a role, if only a secondary one, in the events in Yerevan and will try to get their dividends in the future. In our opinion, however, the main scriptwriter, director and actor of all this "Maidan show" was none other than President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan. How and why? Because he has more than one or two reasons and motives.

In July, the final version of the constitutional amendments will be ready in Armenia, following which one might expect that the internal political life in the country will enter a new dimension. After meeting with Sargsyan, political forces said that, according to the new constitution, the control of the armed forces can be vested in the prime minister, i.e. in the parliamentary majority. Earlier, we noted that Sargsyan sees himself as the undisputed leader of the Republican Party of Armenia and he needs to ensure an absolute majority in the Armenian parliament. This will largely depend on how strong Sargsyan's position in the party is. Any disorder, such as occurred in Yerevan last month, is a good test of loyalty of one's team, including the political, punitive and economic elite, whereas protests and "popular indignation" are the best bogeyman for those who have over the years amassed their capital by exploiting the Armenian people to further support Sargsyan in fear of revenge.

Sargsyan also decided to use "people's wrath" not only against his colleagues but also against a "strategic ally", that is the Kremlin. The thing is that of late, the relations between Russia and Azerbaijan can be described as idyllic. Numerous visits by officials, rapprochement between the two countries on many issues, support for Baku during the first European Games, as well as increasingly frequent statements from different sources to the effect that official Moscow holds a fairly neutral stance on the issue of the Karabakh conflict could not but disturb the Armenian leadership. Because the Karabakh conflict, or rather the occupation of Azerbaijan's territory, is the only factor in Armenia that keeps the current regime in power, and the slightest change in the status quo will immediately lead to the loss of influence of the Karabakh clan in Yerevan. It is clear that without the support of Russia, Armenia will not be able to resist Azerbaijan for a single day. Continuous advances to the West, insincerity and disloyalty in relations with Russia forced official Moscow to reconsider its relations with Armenia. According to analysts, the Kremlin began to look for a replacement for Sargsyan some time ago. Previous President Robert Kocharyan is considered to be a kind of "taken-up piece", and Moscow is unlikely to bet on him. It has long been rumoured that Seyran Ohanyan, the current Minister of Defence of Armenia, can be regarded as a possible substitute for Sargsyan. Indeed, he is a native of Karabakh and a man loyal to Moscow. But Ohanyan is not the person who would agree to take a back seat, and it does not fit in with Sargsyan's plans. Let us not forget the recent row between Ohanyan and two Armenian newspapers which have published materials compromising the spouse of the minister of defence. This publication appeared and was published in the media immediately after the rise of talk about Ohanyan as a presidential hopeful.

Against the background of what is happening, the Armenian head of state decided to stake his all - to arrange a controlled maidan where nationalists could easily shout "Russia, out!" and "Armenia for Armenians" as well as to check his close associates in the country and to demonstrate his own indispensability to his overlord in Moscow.

The Armenian president loves gambling and is also said to be a chess player. So he decided to take a risk in a big game, having forgotten (or having no other options) what had happened to Viktor Yanukovych who also flirted with proponents of European integration in order to have a strong position in relations with Moscow and get more leniency. While Sargsyan has admittedly been luckier thus far, it should be noted that he is a poor strategist and no more than a chess tactician skilful in making moves within 64 squares of the chessboard. However, big-league politics has a lot more squares. And while speaking about the chessboard, one cannot but mention the piece which starts political chess games, namely, demonstrators who come onto the streets to defend their economic and eventually political freedoms. Yes, the game starts with them. But, as the history of this long-suffering people shows, the people start and end up as a pawn in such games, and never become a queen. This is the scenario of the Armenian president. However, building such primitive combinations, the Armenian leadership does not realize that it is playing - not with electricity, but literally with fire.