No matter how much amateur politicians dream, in the modern world of international relations, hard calculation, national power and interests still rule – not illusions and cheap PR. Over the past ten years, Ukraine has gone from an unstable but relatively integral country, despite the existence of ethnic peripheries, to a state on the verge of a political, economic and demographic catastrophe. The state is a big word, given the control over Ukraine’s resources and infrastructure that the United States and other creditors of Ukraine will establish after the truce with Russia. The key reason for such a rapid decline is the trust in amateurs, who are not only unable to build a survival strategy in a multi-layered geopolitical context, but also do not think in such categories. This lesson is critically important for Armenia, which also finds itself in the hands of a populist who does not understand the fundamental principles of political realism.
Illusions instead of guarantees
Ukraine has demonstrated a costly and deadly lesson to the whole world, how counting on promises without real guarantees ends. Realising the danger of a clash with a nuclear power and realising that resistance would have to be put up at the cost of human lives and the future of the country, Ukraine did nothing to prevent the war. It is hard to say what Zelensky was counting on: that ‘in the West’ the martyrdom of an entire state would be duly appreciated, or that it might even be prevented by taking pity on a nation of millions and its fertile homeland at the last moment.
After the outbreak of the full-scale conflict in 2022, it turned out that promises were not equivalent to commitments, while military assistance was provided only in the amounts that corresponded to the interests of the ‘allies’, not Ukraine. And the question is not about someone’s evil intentions or even greed, but simply that established states are run by leaders who put the interests of their citizens above others – otherwise they pay with a political career. It was to this standard that the peoples of Ukraine and Armenia aspired at one time – and were sobered by the harsh, amateurish, meaningless reality.
Volodymyr Zelensky, a former comedian with no political experience, sees international relations as a script for a multi-part film where he plays the role of a hero fighting evil. The problem is that international relations are based not on drama, but on a balance of power. And, unfortunately, it is impossible to reshoot an unsuccessful take, kill or resurrect a character to please the audience. Zelensky initially did not have a clear plan for getting out of the war, but only rhetoric, which sometimes turned into threats against China, ultimatums to the West and demands for the impossible. As a result, Ukraine found itself in a state of strategic deadlock. And the price paid by the ‘extras’ for the popularity of the main character are millions of lives, lost territories, a destroyed economy, a demographic crisis, and the loss of strategic control over the very resources that had previously attracted attention to Ukraine. Now these resources are assigned to the United States, and no one will seriously communicate with the leadership of Ukraine when there are no adults at home.
Ukrainian lessons for Armenia
Perhaps, even against the background of such a catastrophic outcome, it is too great an honour for Pashinyan to be compared to Zelensky. However, parallels between two capitulating countries with dilettante leaders are still necessary, unless the Armenian capitulation to reality is faster. Pashinyan’s few supporters, of course, will take off the mask of Russophobia and rejoice, saying that their leader was right to take a course away from confrontation with Azerbaijan. Only, firstly, the Armenia-Azerbaijan couple will never compare in the asymmetry of power with the Ukrainian-Russian one. Secondly, Pashinyan has already paid a colossal human price at the expense of the Armenian people, squandered the remnants of the Armenian sovereignty in the same way. Now he leads Armenia and the Armenian world to being slaughtered by the enemy in the same populist and emotional manner based on false illusions.
Pashinyan decided that he was more cunning, so he is selling Armenia to the enemy directly – without intermediaries in the form of the ‘collective West’ or the ubiquitous Russia. However, while putting his treacherous concessions into practice, he does not disdain the participation of either the first or the second in order to shift responsibility for the destruction of Armenians and Armenia to them at the last moment. The supreme capitulator does not understand why his ‘generosity’ at the expense of the Armenian world is not properly appreciated by the centres of power at least by providing basic guarantees of his security and the reproduction of his power. However, no one appreciates weakness and compliance, no one communicates on equal terms with amateurs, no one gives real guarantees to those who beg for them. In the morning, Artsakh and the remnants of Armenia, and in the evening…to whom the chairs should be given in the evening, if there is nowhere else to put them?
Alas, there is no other future for countries whose leaders communicate through slogans and newspaper headlines – the lack of a clear national project and strategic vision will always lead them into the clutches of populists and manipulating global players. Does this mean that resisting the course of history is useless? As long as such politicians are in power and as long as the people are ready to tolerate the absence of decent elites capable of developing national interests and defending them – definitely yes. Armenia has already gone too far. But the painful lesson of Ukraine, taught to us in real time, should finally bring us to our senses: we cannot afford to ignore reality. We cannot indulge in the illusions of the ‘crossroads of peace’ and ‘real Armenia’, hoping that the humane Europe will appreciate our efforts to make friends with Azerbaijan, or that the experienced businessman Trump and (or) realist Putin will appreciate our ‘pragmatism’ in the issue of ‘unblocking communications’. Peace is achieved not through betrayal of identity and vain hopes, but through the competent use of existing assets and liabilities and the search for real allies able and willing to support the country not with words, but with deeds, as they are interested in its security and independence almost as in their own.
