ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE 'PEOPLE'S LEADER'?

The velvet revolution, which took place in Armenia a year ago, put an end to the rule of the criminal Karabakh clan and raised Nikol Pashinian, the 'people's leader' to the pinnacle of the power. He is still trying to convince his fellow citizens in the beautiful future of the country, which however is suffering from a permanent crisis without any real ways to bring this cherished moment of the "Armenian revolution" closer. The population of the neighbouring country began to understand that pathetic words are not enough to achieve the objective. However, no one in Armenia has courage to admit that the only way to salvation lies solely through the rejection of aggression against Azerbaijan and the establishment of cooperation with the leading state in the South Caucasus.

Is corruption defeated?

Pashinian  and his government came to power primarily under the slogans of justice, the fight against corruption and oligarchs. Indeed, the current head of the Armenian government managed to oust the members of the former criminal regime, to bring to justice a number of its infamous representatives, including General Manvel Grigorian and even the ex-President Robert Kocharyan, accused of organising violent suppression of mass protests on March 1, 2008. However, whether more justice has become in Armenia this year is a truly rhetorical question.

For example, the struggle against oligarchy and monopolism so widely announced by Pashinian raises serious doubts regarding its consistency. One of the key oligarchs and monopolists of the country, Gagik Tsarukian, who is the leader of the party Prosperous Armenia and its parliamentary faction, is also one of the political allies of Pashinian. As if challenging the society, which condemns oligarchy, Tsarukian mockingly and cynically admitted that "the main revolution today is a revolution of promises". "Whatever changes, I was, is and will remain, because my behaviour, my works, cleanliness of thoughts and devotion cannot be changed," Tsarukian said a few days ago, as if ironically over the end of the era of oligarchs and monopolists proclaimed in Armenia.

Meanwhile, the arrest of the head of the State Control Service David Sanasarian, who is one of Pashinian’s closest associates, manifests the presence of such a phenomenon as corruption in revolutionary Armenia. In one of his recent speeches in parliament, Mr. Pashinian expressed bewilderment about the fact that "some revolutionaries changed radically when they came to power." Apparently, Sanasarian seems to have changed so drastically that the leader of the "velvet revolution" himself was forced to approve the start of criminal prosecution. Not surprisingly, the Sanasarian case was called a landmark event, which opened a new stage in the history of the "velvet revolution", a stage when it started to "devour its own children".

In addition, the criminal prosecution of Sanasarian revealed a possible split among the revolutionaries. It is believed that by initiating a case against the head of the State Control Service, Pashinian lost legitimacy in the eyes of the "Soros" wing of the "revolution". According to Armenian media, the members of the "Soros" group in the Armenian leadership entered Pashinian’s office and demanded that he stop the case against Sanasarian.

Obviously, the presence of "Soros" group in Pashinian’s team suggests an external role in accomplishing the "velvet revolution" in Armenia. From the moment he came to power, Pashinian denied any foreign influence on the triumph of his movement, My Step. Speaking recently at the session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, Pashinian again assured that the revolution in Armenia took place without the participation of any outside force. But at the same time, how can one explain the apparent domination of agents of Western influence surrounding the Armenian premier? This particularly includes the same "Soros people", but not limited to them, if we take into account a significant increase in the number of LGBT representatives in the social and political life of the country.

Positioning himself as an avid supporter of liberal democracy and clearly hoping to gain benefits from the Western centres of power, Pashinian began to demonstrate loyalty to sexual minorities since his first days in the power. However, the case seems to be taking unexpected turns for the prime minister. For example, the scandal caused by a transgender Lilit Martirosian in the Armenian parliament. This person was expelled from the National Assembly, which caused a sharp outrage among LGBT communities, who began to declare their key role in last year’s "velvet revolution" and Nikol Pashinian’s rise to power. They make it clear that they are still considering the pressure on sexual minorities as "a planned action by opponents of Nikol Pashinian  to discredit him."

However, LGBT activists warn that if the Pashinian government continues to exert pressure on them, they may well make another coup. So the "avid liberal" Pashinian  and his men have something to worry about, nervously reacting to such threats, especially when they come from forces enjoying the absolute benevolence of the West.

Bluff and failure of the "velvet revolution"

The above factor, the favour of the West, is extremely significant for the leadership of the "velvet revolution". Over the past year, Armenian government partially ceased its pro-Western and, accordingly, anti-Russian rhetoric. Before coming to power, Pashinian proved to be an opponent of a union with Russia and Armenia’s participation in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). In particular, the Yelk ("Exit") bloc headed by Pashinian raised the issue of creating a commission to prepare a statement on Armenia’s withdrawal from the EAEU and the country's integration into the Euro-Atlantic space. After coming to the power, however, Pashinian began to support "more effective integration within the framework of the Eurasian Union."

However, judging by the problems that the current Armenian authorities have in relations with the leading countries of the EAEU (Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus), it becomes obvious for everyone, and above all for the leaders of these states, that Pashinian supports "more effective integration" with them not because of his personal ambitions but due to geopolitical realities that he understands as a prime minister. This is also confirmed by the composition of the ruling bloc My Step, where majority of members are the representatives of non-governmental organisations funded by the West.

According to the well-known Russian political analyst, director of the Institute for Political Studies Sergey Markov, "there are many pro-Western people in Pashinian’s team who, respectively, benefit from Western grants. They are known for their love for Europe and the U.S. and their critical attitude towards Russia. In fact, geopolitical alliance with Russia is very beneficial for Armenia. But Pashinian's team has been nursed by the West for a long time. These people have worked for many years encouraging anti-Russian rhetoric occasionally when, for example, someone says that it is necessary to limit the broadcasting of Russian TV channels in Armenia or that Russia does not protect Armenia in the Karabakh conflict. Today Armenia is happy to use any reason that can offend Russia. Yet another form of latent Russophobia."

Indeed, the statement of Narine Khachatrian's (Tukhikian) from the ruling My Step faction of the parliament has recently made a lot of noise in the context of Russophobia prevailing in Armenia. Pashinian’s ardent supporter, regularly criticizing Armenia’s friendship with Russia ("this friendship is a bluff", "there is no such friendship, it’s a fictitious model"), now raised the issue of restricting the broadcasting of Russian TV channels Mir, ORT and Rossiya-1. Remarkably, another colleague of Pashinian, Chairman of the National Commission on Television and Radio, Tigran Hakobian, agreed with Khachatrian’s opinion, since, according to him, the broadcasting of Russian TV channels "creates a certain threat to the information security of Armenia."

Alternative to hopelessness

Meanwhile, anti-Russian hysteria continues to grow in Armenia amidst the unrestrained growth of the severe socio-economic crisis and the worsening of the material situation of population. In this context, the past year of the "velvet" revolutionary government did not bring any good to the people of Armenia, nor did it contribute to the improvement of the country's economic indicators. Low wages and pensions, rising unemployment, decline of industry and agriculture, increase of public debt and, finally, the continuing outflow of the population from the country, contributing to the worsening of the demographic crisis, all these realities of Armenian life have not changed. In other words, the economic situation in the country has not changed since the departure of the criminal regime of Serzh Sargsyan.

Pashinian, of course, is aware of the destructiveness of such realities. In an effort to encourage the almost hopeless population to some extent, he regularly makes ungrounded statements about the alleged Western aid (which, in fact, also confirms the Euro-Atlantic orientation of the current Armenian authorities). Speaking recently in the Armenian parliament, Pashinian announced his government’s presentation to the European Union "13 projects, some of which can be considered megaprojects." This was followed by an interesting comment: "Our international partners say smart things. They say that we have to invest money, because it is difficult to imagine that any international organisation finances a single program for 100% of its value. For example, a program for the development of infrastructures or the construction of reservoirs."

It turns out that even the EU, with all the support of the notorious "velvet revolution", is ready to give the Pashinian government not money, but a cold shoulder. EU therefore would have to decide how prudently invest in the Armenian authorities so that it would not look like they fund a single program in the country for '100% of its value'? Pashinian could not explain anything specifically on this account. Neither was he able to dispel concerns about the increase in public debt due to the attraction of external funds: "If we actively fight against the shadow economy, an increase in public debt does not pose a threat. IMF experts believe that the size of the shadow economy in Armenia is up to 50-60%. If the authorities fight against the shadow economy, then Armenia’s GDP will receive a certain growth and the country's debt will fall from the threshold of 60% of GDP. "

In other words, the people can only hope for Pashinian’s active struggle against the shadow economy, but even if he is successful, the country's debt will decrease only insignificantly, currently being at the catastrophic mark of 60% of GDP. Thus, Pashinian again did not specify what the encouraging mark of the national debt can be for his reforms to succeed. Obviously, it is not because he was modest, but because there is nothing hopeful about this indicator. After all, the main problem of Armenia lies in a different plane.

We mean the conflict with Azerbaijan. The source of this conflict is the occupation by Armenia of a fifth part of the internationally recognised territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Over the past year, Baku and Yerevan have managed to partially reduce the intensity of tension on the line of contact. At the political and diplomatic level, it is obvious that Azerbaijan is still counting on the prudence of the new Armenian leadership and its ability to accept the inevitability of liberation of the occupied Azerbaijani territories. However, we should admit that Pashinian has spent the whole year of his premiership mostly by making meaningless statements useless for a long-term settlement of the conflict. This shows his inability to demonstrate due political will and make a decision on the refusal from the policy of aggression against Azerbaijan, which will be for the benefit of Armenia too. However, by pushing the process of peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict to the point of no return, the "velvet-revolutionary" government of Pashinian in fact condemns the future of his country. After all, this future depends, firstly, on whether Armenia will be able to establish peace and cooperation with Azerbaijan, promising it a long-awaited way out of isolation and involvement in regional integration projects. Armenia has no other way to ensure its development.