Thursday, April 4 2024 18:03

ArmInfo.The team of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan proclaims history as almost the main  source of troubles and catastrophes for the Armenian people. A similar opinion is shared by Sergei Markedonov, a leading researcher at the Institute of International Studies of the MGIMO University of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

The expert stated that today articles about Armenia are focusing on a  change in the "foreign policy vector." However, he is convinced that  in this process, at first glance, elementary cause-and-effect  relationships disappear from view.

"Are only the current prime minister and his team to blame for the  "turn to the West"? Or should we talk about some systemic foundations  for this shift, no matter how unpleasant it may be for us Russians?   When answering these questions, I would refer to the recent statement  of the head of the Armenian government, Nikol Pashinyan, who, during  a meeting with members of the ruling Civil Contract party, announced  the painful transition currently taking place "from historical to  real Armenia." According to the prime minister, he did not come to  the republic from another planet, he was born and raised in this  environment." But in fact, it was during his rule that dismantled the  first edition of post-Soviet Armenia. Of course, Pashinyan speaks a  little more subtly, but the essence of his statement does not change.  Here are the roots of "de-Karabakhization", and the readiness to  receive "peace in exchange for territory", and the radical  demythologization of Armenian national narratives," Markedonov  assures.

At the same time, the expert recalled that in a very deep, but  thoroughly (and in vain!) half-forgotten article by the brilliant  Dmitry Furman (1943-2011) "The Armenian National Movement. History  and Psychology" (published in 1992 in the fresh wake of the collapse  of the USSR) talks about the uniqueness of the state project of  post-Soviet Armenia in comparison with other former Soviet republics.   "It was not built around the 'postponed' Union, or rather not only  and not so much around it, but for the sake of correcting a whole  range of historical injustices (from the disaster of 1915 through  Alexandropol, Moscow, Kars, the decision of the Caucasian Bureau on  Karabakh). Caught between the millstones of collapsing empires and  rising nationalism, Armenia has lost too much. According to Eric  Hobsbawm, this republic is a remnant of that past, from which the  Armenian population was squeezed out or expelled. As a result, a  painful focus on ideas of recovery and return, while quite often  ignoring the current political challenges. "It seems that there is no  other people who would live more in the past, experiencing both past  greatness and previous catastrophes," Furman stated. Let us remember  how richly and vividly this phenomenon is described by Andrei Bitov  in his "Lessons of Armenia" !", suggested the Russian expert.  "But,  as the harsh formula of Vladimir Vysotsky states, "you can't escape  into dreams only." Inconvenient modernity will remind itself. And in  the Armenian context, this was the case in 2008, and in 2016, and in  2020 and in 2023. The reality of today is not replaced by the memory  of the past, great and terrible at the same time. The pendulum now  inexorably carries in the other direction, away from history, towards  some imaginary reality. However, with any movement it would be useful  to avoid sharp turns. But Pashinyan's team, on the contrary, , gives  in some kind of voluptuousness swinging the pendulum," noted  Markedonov.  According to him, now history is proclaimed almost as  the main source of troubles and catastrophes for the Armenians.

"Reading "Confession of a Political Leader" by Hovhannes  Qchaznuni/Ter-Hovhannisyan (1868-1938, the first prime minister of  the First Republic), it is difficult to get rid of the feeling of  some kind of cyclicality (repetition) of the historical process. The  author points out that after 1915, the mass of Armenians had  "euphoria and self-hypnosis" gave way to horror, after which "they  looked for evidence of the betrayal of the Russians and, of course,  found it, just as six months ago they looked for and found evidence  of the benevolent attitude of the Russians," Markedonov further  quotes. In conclusion, the Russian political scientist states that it  is difficult for a politician to find a balance between the past and  the future, since it is impossible to build all current strategies  with ones head turned backwards.  "But it is also utopian (and  dangerous!) to ignore the lessons of history, not to understand the  reasons for today's phenomena in yesterday's affairs. And therefore,  a choice cannot be made between history and reality, the most optimal  option is knowledge acquired (!) through experience without its  idealization and absolutization," the political scientist concluded.