Skip to main content

From St. Petersburg to Syunik: Reinvigorating the Russian–Armenian Security Alliance

By

 Pietro Shakarian



Authors: Pietro Shakarian and Benyamin Poghosyan*

This July will mark the 300th anniversary of Peter the Great’s Caspian campaign. The campaign proved costly for the Russian emperor in terms of lives and resources, and the outcome was disappointing. Nevertheless, the events of July 1722 marked a key moment for Russia’s southern expansion, with an eye toward the eventual incorporation of the Caucasus. In his campaign, Peter commanded the loyalty of regional allies – the Georgian King Vakhtang VI and the leaders of the Armenian principalities of Syunik and Khachen (approximately corresponding to today’s Nagorno-Karabakh). Three hundred years later, the latter two Armenian regions are once again at the center of Russian security policy in Transcaucasia, amid growing threats from the increasingly ambitious NATO member Turkey.

The outcomes of the 2020 Karabakh war have not only upset the regional status quo, but they also continue to threaten Russia’s security in the post-Soviet space. Although still afloat, the current Armenian government is weak, and it has failed to inspire the popular confidence that it once commanded in the heady days of spring 2018. The defeat in the recent war dealt it a significant blow, and it left the country’s geopolitical clout in tatters, with formidable challenges and growing ambiguities in its foreign and security policy. Socioeconomic concerns, a major driver for the 2018 “Velvet Revolution,” remain unresolved. As inflation rises at an alarming rate, the latest statistics show the country’s unemployment rate at 15%, the highest in the EAEU.

Recent poll findings from the International Republican Institute reflect the growing popular mood. 46% of Armenians agree that their country is not going in the right direction, a significant blow to the republic’s sitting leadership. Of those surveyed, 88% stated that the top national security threat facing Armenia is the Turkish Republic. Only 5% say that Armenian-Turkish dialogue is necessary, while the vast majority say that the government should instead invest its greatest effort in enhancing Armenia’s strategic security alliance with the Russian Federation. The poll findings echo popular sentiments on the streets of Yerevan, as residents express comfort with the regular flights of Russian MiG-29 fighters over the skies of the Armenian capital. By contrast, the government’s proclaimed “new era of peace” with Turkey has invited considerable concern, and even apprehension, among the population, given not only the memory of Turkey’s direct involvement in the 2020 Karabakh war, but also the 1915 Armenian Genocide, which Ankara still denies.

If Yerevan were to continue its “new era” course and neglect its vital national security interests in Nagorno-Karabakh and Syunik, it will not only risk transforming Armenia into a Turkish client state, as this will also threaten to end Russia’s presence in Transcaucasia, creating a new Turkey-NATO threat on Russia’s southern frontiers. Currently, NATO stands a mere 135 kilometers (84 miles) from Peter the Great’s “window to Europe,” St. Petersburg. With an active support of the ambitious Ankara, it could soon follow this act by reaching within a short distance of historical Derbent, Russia’s southernmost city. Indeed, although it regularly dons the guise of an “independent player,” Turkey is a master of the double-talk (even triple-talk) of the Eastern bazaar. While charming Kremlin officials with Turkish delights, its actions show that it fully backs NATO’s bid to oust Russia from the post-Soviet space.

Nevertheless, Moscow’s swift reaction to the recent turmoil in Kazakhstan dealt a significant blow to Ankara’s ambitions in post-Soviet Eurasia and the “Turkic World.” In quick order, Kazakhstan’s President managed to gain control over the situation in close coordination with Russia and the CSTO. The episode vividly underscored the importance that Russia attaches to the post-Soviet space as its primary zone of vital national security interests. It also highlighted the reality that, in today’s multipolar world, Turkey, despite all the talk of becoming an independent regional power, will continue to assume its position as the bulwark of NATO in post-Soviet Eurasia, rather than join any rival—Russian or Chinese—pole. These basic geopolitical realities will remain unchanged, regardless of how many Russian tourists flock to Antalya or how many cubic meters of Russian natural gas are transported through Turkey.

Such an environment begs the question: chto delat? What is to be done? A possible path forward would be to strengthen the strategic alliance between Russia and Armenia, with the aim of preventing Turkey, and by extension NATO, from establishing any domination in the post-Soviet Transcaucasia. Such a scenario would envision a complete strategic coordination between Moscow and Yerevan on several key fronts, including:

I. Preservation and protection of the Armenian population on the historical Armenian homeland, especially in Nagorno-Karabakh and the southern Armenian provinces of Syunik and Vayots Dzor. To this end, Yerevan can work in coordination with Moscow to promote economic development and job opportunities to incentivize population growth and discourage emigration. Moreover, the enhancement of Moscow’s territorial control of Karabakh to further secure the civilian population could act as a powerful incentive to prevent out-migration, from both Karabakh and Armenia’s southern provinces.

II. Russian–Armenian military harmonization. This scenario envisions Yerevan working in tandem with Moscow to promote greater coordination in military affairs, especially in the spheres of air defense, tactical training, and military intelligence. To that end, a joint Russian-Armenian military command center could be established at Kapan, capital of the Syunik Province. Such a center would provide a “half-way” point, connecting the men of the forces of the 102nd Russian Base at Gyumri with those of the Russian peacekeeping forces in Karabakh, as well as the Russian pogranichniki (border troops) serving on the Turkish, Iranian, and Azerbaijani borders. Moreover, it would enhance the security of the civilian population of Syunik. Besides, Yerevan must work to ensure the indefinite deployment of Russian peacekeeping forces in Karabakh. All of this would establish Armenia as a secure link in Russia’s defense architecture in post-Soviet Eurasia. The life and safety of every Armenian civilian—man, woman, and child—depends on close cooperation and coordination between all branches of the Armenian and Russian militaries, down to the common soldier.

III. Restriction of Turkish economic penetration and control into the Armenian Republic. Conversely, the role of Russia and the EAEU in the economic life of Armenia should be enhanced, with the aim of promoting economic growth and opportunity, as envisioned in Point I. Naturally, Armenia and Russia should both be interested in Yerevan normalizing relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan, but not at the expense of Armenian or Russian vital national security interests. In that respect, Moscow and Yerevan share the common aim of preventing Turkey’s dominance in the Caucasus. Yerevan especially should never neglect its duty to protect the civilians of Nagorno-Karabakh and their right of self-determination for the sake of dubious “economic benefits” with Ankara.

Any cursory study of vital Russian and Armenian national interests proves that such a strategy is essential to both sides. For the broader Armenian community, it ensures the defense and continued physical existence of the Armenian people on their historical homeland. For Russia, it cements its presence as the preeminent force in Transcaucasia, guaranteeing security on its southern frontiers, while ensuring against encroachments by Ankara and NATO into Central Asia. The realization of such a strategy requires robust diplomacy on the part of both Moscow and especially Yerevan. Both sides should not wait to cement this process. As the great Armenian diplomat and Syunik native Israel Ori proved in his service to Peter the Great, no challenge is insurmountable.

*Benyamin Poghosyan, Chairman, Center for Political and Economic Strategic Studies

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/03/21/from-st-petersburg-to-syunik-reinvigorating-the-russian-armenian-security-alliance/








U.S. suggested Turkey transfer Russian-made missile system to Ukraine

Reuters
By Humeyra Pamuk

WASHINGTON, March 19 (Reuters) – The United States has informally raised with Turkey the unlikely possibility of sending its Russian-made S-400 missile defense systems to Ukraine to help it fight invading Russian forces, according to three sources familiar with the matter.

U.S. officials have floated the suggestion over the past month with their Turkish counterparts but no specific or formal request was made, the sources told Reuters. They said it also came up briefly during Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman’s visit to Turkey earlier this month.

The Biden administration has been asking allies who have been using Russian made equipment and systems including S-300s and S-400s to consider transferring them to Ukraine as it tries to fend off a Russian invasion that began on Feb. 24. read more

The idea, which analysts said was sure to be shot down by Turkey, was part of a wider discussion between Sherman and Turkish officials about how the United States and its allies can do more to support Ukraine and on how to improve bilateral ties.

The Turkish authorities have not commented on any U.S. suggestion or proposal relating to the transfer to Ukraine of Ankara’s S-400 systems, which have been a point of long-standing contention between the two NATO allies.

Turkish foreign ministry officials were not immediately available for comment.

Turkish sources and analysts said any such suggestion would be a non-starter for Turkey, citing issues ranging from technical hurdles related to installing and operating the S-400s in Ukraine, to political concerns such as the blowback Ankara would likely face from Moscow.

Washington has repeatedly asked Ankara to get rid of the Russian-built surface-to-air missile batteries since the first delivery arrived in July 2019. The United States has imposed sanctions on a Turkey’s defence industry and removed NATO member Turkey from the F-35 fighter jet programme as a result.

Ankara has said it was forced to opt for the S-400s because allies did not provide weapons on satisfactory terms.

U.S. officials are keen to seize this moment to draw Turkey back into Washington’s orbit. Efforts to find “creative” ways to improve the strained relationship have accelerated in recent weeks, even though no specific proposal has so far gained traction, U.S. and Turkish sources have said.

“I think everyone knows that the S-400 has been a long standing issue and perhaps this is a moment when we can figure out a new way to solve this problem,” Sherman told Turkish broadcaster Haberturk in an interview on March 5.

It was not clear what exactly she meant and the State Department has not answered questions about her comments. The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the suggestion made during her visit to Turkey.

The effort is also part of a wider bid by the Biden administration to respond to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s plea to help protect Ukraine’s skies. Russian or Soviet-made air defense systems such as S-300s that other NATO allies have and S-400s are sought after.

One source familiar with U.S. thinking said Washington’s floating of the possibility came as a result of the renewed effort to improve ties at a time when Ankara has been spooked by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Turkish President Erdogan had not received a specific heads up from Russian President Vladimir Putin on his plans of a full-scale attack on Ukraine, another source familiar with the discussions said.

Turkey shares a maritime border with Ukraine and Russia in the Black Sea and has good ties with both. It has said the invasion is unacceptable and voiced support for Ukraine, but has also opposed sanctions on Moscow while offering to mediate.

Ankara has carefully formulated its rhetoric not to offend Moscow, analysts say, with which it has close energy, defence and tourism ties. But Ankara has also sold military drones to Kyiv and signed a deal to co-produce more, angering the Kremlin. Turkey also opposes Russian policies in Syria and Libya, as well as its 2014 annexation of Crimea.

“Turkey has managed to walk on the razor’s edge and a transfer of a Russian S-400 would certainly lead to severe Russian ire,” said Aaron Stein, director of research at the Philadelphia-based Foreign Policy Research Institute. “And for Erdogan, the S-400 has become a symbol of Turkish sovereignty, so trading it away wouldn’t be all roses and flowers.”

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-suggested-turkey-transfer-russian-made-missile-system-ukraine-sources-2022-03-19/

Iranian embassy in Yerevan warns against travelling to Armenia by land

IRAN FRONT PAGE

The Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran has warned Iranians against travelling to Armenia by land due to heavy snowfall.

The Iranian Embassy in Yerevan said traffic along the land border has been disrupted by heavy snowfall, especially the area near Armenia’s Syunik province.

It also said Armenian officials have been forced to take some measures to give assistance to people travelling through the region and to accommodate people who were stranded there.

The Iranian Embassy added that the cold snap will drag on in the coming days, recommending Iranian citizens to avoid travelling to Armenia by land.

https://ifpnews.com/iranian-embassy-in-yerevan-warns-against-travelling-to-armenia-by-land/

RFE/RL Armenian Report – 03/19/2022

                                        Saturday, 
Armenia Calls On UN To ‘Restore Neutrality’ In Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
The building of Armenia’s Foreign Ministry in Yerevan.
Armenia has demanded that the United Nations take steps “to restore its neutral 
position in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict” as it protested the 
participation of the global organization’s officials in an event that Azerbaijan 
held in a key Karabakh town earlier this week.
Acting UN Resident Coordinator in Armenia Lila Pieters Yahia was invited to 
Armenia’s Foreign Ministry on Saturday and informed that the ministry “strongly 
condemns the involvement of the UN Office in Azerbaijan in the event organized 
in Shushi on March 18.”
The ministry said that a note of protest was handed to the UN representative in 
this regard.
Azerbaijan organized an event in Shushi (Susa) on Friday dedicated to the 30th 
anniversary of the country’s membership in the UN. Baku said that the UN 
resident coordinator in Azerbaijan and other representatives of the organization 
participated in the event during which a UN flag was raised in Shushi.
The UN did not immediately comment on the reaction in Yerevan.
Earlier, Nagorno-Karabakh’s ethnic Armenian authorities also condemned 
Azerbaijan’s holding of such an event in Shushi.
Stepanakert accused official Baku of trying to use international structures in 
its policy aimed at “legitimizing the results of its aggression” against 
Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020.
Shushi (Susa) is a key town in Nagorno-Karabakh contested by both Armenians and 
Azerbaijanis. Ethnic Armenians took control of the town in 1992 as they fought a 
separatist war against Azerbaijan following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Azerbaijani forces regained control of Shushi during the second Karabakh war in 
2020. The capture of the strategic town by Azerbaijan marked a turning point in 
the hostilities and was followed by a Moscow-brokered ceasefire that brought 
Russian peacekeepers to the region.
Nagorno-Karabakh’s de-facto authorities consider Shushi and other areas of the 
former Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous oblast proper currently controlled by 
Azerbaijan to be occupied territories.
Baku considers the town and the rest of Nagorno-Karabakh to be Azerbaijan’s 
sovereign territory.
France ‘Ready’ To Support Armenian-Azerbaijani Peace Talks
        • Siranuysh Gevorgian
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian
In separate phone calls with his Armenian and Azerbaijani counterparts this 
week, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian has said that as a co-chair of 
the OSCE Minsk Group France is ready to make efforts to support the negotiation 
process between Yerevan and Baku over a peace deal.
According to the French Foreign Ministry, in telephone conversations with Ararat 
Mirzoyan and Jeyhun Bayramov, Le Drian highlighted the importance of stability 
and peace in the South Caucasus and stressed the readiness of Paris for 
consultations with the countries of the region.
Armenia’s Foreign Ministry said on Monday that it had applied to the OSCE Minsk 
Group co-chairs (France, the United States and Russia) to organize 
Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations on a peace treaty “on the basis of the UN 
Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the 
Helsinki Final Act.”
It followed a statement by Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Bayramov that Baku had 
submitted a five-point proposal to Yerevan to normalize relations.
In his conversations with the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers, Le 
Drian also reportedly expressed concern about the recent tensions on the ground 
and called for all possible measures to be taken to reduce them.
The top French diplomat, in particular, stressed the importance of contacts 
between the sides on the issue of restoring gas supply to Nagorno-Karabakh, 
which was disrupted earlier this month due to a damaged pipeline passing via 
Baku-controlled territory.
Nagorno-Karabakh’s ethnic Armenian authorities on Saturday said that gas supply 
to the region had been partially restored after the completion of maintenance 
work on the gas pipeline.
Earlier, Stepanakert accused Baku of not allowing Armenian maintenance workers 
to enter the territory controlled by Azerbaijan for repairs, as a result of 
which the region was deprived of gas supply for 11 days amid freezing 
temperatures.
During his telephone conversation with Mirzoyan, the French foreign minister 
also welcomed the recent visit of the Armenian foreign minister to Turkey, 
stressing that France “encourages continued negotiations on the normalization of 
relations between the two countries.”
The situation in Ukraine was also reportedly discussed during both conversations.
Reprinted on ANN/Armenian News with permission from RFE/RL
Copyright (c) 2022 Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Inc.
1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.
 

Azerbaijani press: Armenian lobby seen behind European Parliament anti-Azerbaijan resolution

By Sabina Mammadli

 Azerbaijan’s State Committee on Religious Associations has stated that a resolution adopted by the European Parliament on March 10 doesn’t reflect reality, and contains false Armenian statements.

The committee made remarks in a statement of protest against the biased resolution, which  is believed to have been drafted under the Armenian lobby’s influence

It was pointed out that the resolution fails to address the true situation regarding the fate of Azerbaijan’s historical and religious monuments.

The committee brought up evidence of Armenian destructions on Azerbaijani territory during the 30-year occupation. It underlined that 65 out of 67 mosques were destroyed, the Aghdam Juma mosque was partially preserved due to its use by Armenian armed forces for military purposes, and the Yukhari Govhar Agha Mosque in Shusha was presented as a “Persian” mosque after the so-called repair.

According to the committee, the resolution makes no mention of Armenia’s ethnic cleansing and genocide against Azerbaijanis, the Armenization of Azerbaijani toponyms, the destruction of hundreds of historical and cultural monuments, mosques, and other shrines, the desecration of religious values, the facts of the Gregorianization or destruction of Albanian churches, or, in general, vandalism against Azerbaijan’s religious and cultural heritage.

Furthermore, nearly 900 cemeteries were completely destroyed, tombstones were broken, and graves were excavated with the remains desecrated. For the past 30 years, Azerbaijani citizens have been denied the right to visit their loved ones’ graves, the committee said.

It reiterated in the statement that during the 2020 second Karabakh war, the Azerbaijani armed forces did not conduct any military operations against civilians or religious facilities, as confirmed by foreign journalists.

“Following the second Karabakh war, the Azerbaijani government announced its intention to restore all religious monuments destroyed by the Armenian armed forces in the territories liberated from Armenian occupation during the war, and this process is already being carried out as part of the socio-economic development of these territories on the basis of the ‘Great Return’ program,” the statement said.

Azerbaijan has repeatedly stated that it is the responsibility of the Azerbaijani state to protect historical and religious monuments on its territory, including liberated lands.

Furthermore, it stressed that the ongoing restoration of two churches in Shusha, as well as mosques, is a clear indication of Azerbaijan’s respect for other cultures and religions.

“Azerbaijan, unlike Armenia, doesn’t discriminate against historical and cultural heritage on religious and ethnic grounds and is committed to its obligations under international conventions, including the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in Time of Armed Conflict,” the statement emphasized. 

The committee added that along with the abovementioned convention, Amenia violates the requirements of the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, the European Convention of 1992 “On the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage” and other international documents.

The statement also stated that an agreement was reached to send a UNESCO mission to Azerbaijan and Armenia following a video meeting held on February 4, 2022, with the participation of the President of Azerbaijan, the President of France as this country’s chairmanship in the EU, the President of the Council of the EU, and the Prime Minister of Armenia.

According to the statement, the above agreement confirms the need to investigate the state of the Azerbaijani people’s cultural heritage on Armenian territory.

Finally, the committee expressed regret that the European Parliament’s resolution did not include all of the facts.

A reminder that the European Parliament issued a resolution on March 10 that contained defamation and explicit anti-Azerbaijani propaganda.

The resolution is titled “On the Destruction of the Cultural Heritage of Nagorno-Karabakh”. It’s also worth noting that the story isn’t about Armenian graffiti, but rather about a specific “Armenian heritage” that was allegedly destroyed during the 44-day war.

According to reports, 679 deputies voted, with 635 in favor of the resolution, two opposed, and 42 abstaining.

Azerbaijani press: MP: France supports Armenian separatism, but declares war on separatism within country

By Trend

France declares war on separatism within the country, while it supports Armenian separatism, Azerbaijani MP Elman Nasirov told Trend.

“Unfortunately, today many countries that declare themselves heralds of democracy, including France, are pursuing double standards – supporting Armenian separatism and fighting against separatism at home in the meantime,” he said.

Nasirov stressed that as long as double standards prevail in separatism, the possibilities for overcoming this problem in the world would stay limited.

“How is it possible to support separatism in one case and condemn it in another, when the Corsicans in France demand fair independence for themselves? This is a clear example of double standards, and we have seen it a lot in French policy,” the deputy noted.

He added that both chambers of the French Parliament adopted resolutions supporting separatism in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.

“And now, when a similar situation is happening in France, this is considered unacceptable. What kind of principle of international law is this?! What the double standard and selective approach is it?” Nasirov asked.

Armenian communists and peace activists hold competing Ukraine protests

 

Over the weekend Yerevan saw two protests concerning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. One in support of Russia and the other in solidarity with Ukraine and in opposition to the war. 

Following Saturday’s pro-Russian rally, Armenian peace activists organised an anti-war protest on Sunday, the largest since the war began. 

A few hundred demonstrators — Armenians, Russians, and Ukrainians, took to the streets of Yerevan to ‘resist war’, as many of the placards read.  The protesters also chanted ‘No to war’ (Нет войне) in Russian throughout the march.

‘Of all countries and capitals, for Yerevan, it was the hardest to “speak out”’, Tigran Amiryan, one of the participants, wrote on Facebook. ‘But despite all the risks, today in the centre of Yerevan, “Putin to The Hague”, “ No to war!” and “Glory to Ukraine!” were heard loud in the streets of the city’.

[Read more: Silent and uneasy: Armenia’s response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine]

While the march was the largest such protest since Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February, it has been preceded by almost a dozen small pro-Ukraine gatherings organised by Armenia’s minor pro-Western political parties and the Ukrainian embassy in Armenia.  Several pro-Russian protests have also taken place in the country, since the war began, mainly organised by Armenia’s Communist Party. 

In addition to the Communists, the Saturday pro-Russia protest was supported by minor parties opposed to the Nikol Pashinyan administration and known for their fervent support of Armenia joining a ‘Union State’ with the Russian Federation. 

The protesters gathered near the Russian embassy of Yerevan before marching into the city centre. Many of the protesters held up cutouts of the Latin letter ‘Z’, which has in recent weeks been adopted by the Russian authorities as a symbol of support for the ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine and sang Russian patriotic songs. 

In contrast to the youthful anti-war crowd, the pro-Russia rally appeared to skew older.

The protest was widely covered by Russian state-controlled media, with the apparent aim of giving the impression of mass popular support among Armenians for the invasion. A similar pro-war event was organised on 15 March at a Russian-language secondary school in Gyumri. During the demonstration, the students, most of whom are children of Russian soldiers stationed at a nearby Russian military base, lined up to form a large ‘Z’ in the schoolyard. Some of the students have since told journalists that they were forced to participate. 

Students at school No. 19 near the 102nd Russian base in Gyumri form a pro-war ‘Z’. Photo via e-press.am.

So far, the Armenian authorities have avoided taking a strong stance on the war, once supporting Russia in a Council of Europe vote to suspend the country, and have since abstained on other international votes concerning the conflict. 

Armenia is heavily dependent on Russia, both economically and militarily, especially after the country’s defeat in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. Two thousand Russian peacekeepers are also stationed in the Armenian-inhabited territories of Nagorno-Karabakh. 


Azerbaijani press: Azerbaijan presents postage stamp commemorating partnership with UN in Shusha [PHOTO]

By Trend

Presentation of a postage stamp dedicated to the 30th anniversary of partnership between Azerbaijan and the UN took place in Shusha city [liberated from Armenian occupation in the 2020 second Karabakh war], Trend reports.

The postage stamp was presented at the meeting dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the country’s membership in the UN.

At first the participants of the meeting arrived by plane at the Fuzuli International Airport, and after getting acquainted with it, they went to Shusha on the Victory Road [symbolizing a path used by Azerbaijani army to reach and liberate the city].

The main purpose of the Shusha meeting is to establish a favorable platform for reviewing the path of the Azerbaijan-UN partnership towards the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as discussing Azerbaijan’s new priorities and opportunities in post-pandemic and post-conflict realities.

Discussions at the meeting will be held on two panels.

At the first panel current challenges and opportunities in the field of the Sustainable Development Goals in the post-conflict period will be considered, exchange of views on issues such as ensuring safe and dignified return of former internally displaced persons to the liberated territories, using the potential of “green energy”, humanitarian activities, cleaning up territories from mines, will be assessed.

During the second panel, such issues as the state of the world after the COVID-19 pandemic, post-pandemic realities, assessing opportunities to reduce the socio-economic impact of the pandemic on the global environment, and Azerbaijan’s global initiatives in this area will be discussed.

Among the participants of the meeting are the officials of Azerbaijan, the UN resident coordinator, the leadership of the structures of the world organization in our country.

Perspectives | How do Armenia’s young people see their country?

eurasianet
Edward Rhŷs Jones Mar 21, 2022
Yerevan (photo by Edward Rhŷs Jones)

Armenia’s youth have been through a lot in the last few years: First 2018’s “Velvet Revolution,” in which young people played a significant role, and then the 2020 war with Azerbaijan, in which the fighting and dying was done overwhelmingly by young conscripts.

Add to this the great changes that the entire region and world has gone through at the same time. So what do Armenian young people think about their country’s politics, society, and the direction it is heading?

Highs and lows

The “Velvet Revolution” was heavily backed by young people: Armenians in their late teens and twenties were by some margin the age group most likely to participate in street protests, strikes (at school or the workplace), and most likely to participate in online discussions.

Young Armenians broadly continue to see their revolution as a success. Data from the Caucasus Barometer (CB), a project of the Caucasus Research Resource Centers, show that in 2020 around 60 percent of young Armenians were “somewhat” satisfied with the revolution’s outcomes, compared to around 6 percent who were “not at all” satisfied. But these proportions were the same as in the population as whole, suggesting that even though young people invested more in the revolution, they don’t feel they have gotten more out of it.

Approval of the government of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, which came to power in the revolution, has stumbled. Despite still commanding a modest majority, his Civil Contract Party lost 11 seats in the 2021 elections. Many feel the country’s long-standing problems remain, and the war has only added to them.

Young Armenians consistently point to the economy as Armenia’s most significant problem. In the most recently published CB data from 2020, those between 18 and 25 were around twice as likely as the general population to say that corruption was one of the two most important issues facing the country; they also were considerably more inclined to identify “low quality of education” or “low wages.”

War and peace

The 2020 war disproportionately affected young people. According to available data, the median age of an Armenian soldier who died in the conflict was just 23. In the first war between the two sides, in the 1990s, it was 29.

Still, younger people in Armenia’s heavily militarized society are consistently more likely to view the army in a positive light compared with other age groups, according to February 2021 survey data from the International Republican Institute. That survey found that 57 percent of 18- to 35-year-olds viewed the army in a “very favorable” light, compared with 47 percent of 36- to 55-year-olds and 43 percent of those 56 years and older. Meanwhile, 29 percent of 18- to 35-year-olds held a “very favorable” view of both the work of the police and the prime minister’s office, and 13 percent thought similarly of the work of the president’s office.

But there is reason to be skeptical of these numbers, given cultural taboos around criticizing the military. One man who spoke to me on condition of anonymity – someone who had himself served in Karabakh – revealed something that few would openly admit: He resented that the loss of the Armenian-occupied “buffer” around Nagorno-Karabakh was mourned more than the “kids sent to defend it.” These attitudes are seldom heard in public.

Attitudes between generations

Global liberalizing trends also have been touching Armenia’s traditionally conservative society, especially among young people.

In their 2020 report, the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Pink Armenia found that homophobic and transphobic hate speech, including from elected officials and the media, largely goes unchallenged in Armenia. It also found that LGBTQ+ people were often characterized as “perverts,” as antipatriotic, or as pawns in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories involving George Soros. The tendency was particularly strong during the war, when LGBTQ+ people were seen as an “enemy within,” or otherwise the benefactors of a double standard (that is to say, they were perceived as receiving a level of compassion from the international community that was not extended to Armenia in its conflict with Azerbaijan).

CB data presents a generational divide. One question in the most recently published survey found that an overall majority of Armenians (over 90 percent of all age groups above 30) would not “do business with a homosexual.” Younger Armenians were increasingly unlikely to agree with that position, particularly in the capital, Yerevan: There, 75 percent of those between 18 and 29 said they would not “do business with a homosexual.”

Chougher Maria Doughramajian, an LGBTQ+ rights activist who works with Pink Armenia, ascribed these differences to the fact that younger people more often speak English and are connected to the rest of the world. “LGBTQ+ people are frequently targeted and exploited by political parties for political gains,” she told me. “But today’s youth have more access to information through different media, as compared to their parents and grandparents.”

The most recently published CB data also show that people in their late teens and twenties are more likely than any other age group to approve of “women of their ethnicity” marrying any other given ethnicity. There are limits: only 10 percent of 18-29-year-olds would approve of marriage to a Turk. (When asked about Azerbaijanis – not shown on the graph below – that number was closer to 8 percent.)

This is also a question that speaks to changing attitudes around women’s agency: Armenia’s women have long been seen as more equal in public life than the regional standard. The UNDP’s gender inequality index (which measures women’s education levels, representation in parliament, and labor force participation) placed Armenia 54th in the world in 2020, ahead of all of its neighbors.

But attitudes about women’s role in the family appear to be more traditionalist. A MeToo-style movement called “The Voice of Violence” was met with public skepticism and has struggled to change attitudes around not merely harassment and abuse, but empowerment and change more generally.

On the question of public participation in governance, Armenia’s youth are the first generation to grow up knowing only a post-Soviet state in which some semblance of a civil society exists. Their attitudes toward democratization, human rights, and popular engagement with politics are mixed.

According to the CB data, young Armenians aged 18-29 were 0.8 percentage points less likely than the general population to have attended a public meeting in the previous six months; they were also 1.5 points less likely to have volunteered and 4.5 less likely to have signed a petition in the same timeframe.

But they were also around 6 percentage points more likely to have donated money to charity, with around 44 percent saying they had done so in the last six months. And 37 percent of the same age group reported “rather” or “fully” trusting NGOs compared with 28 percent of the wider population.

On matters of democratic participation, there was also a degree of promise: Young Armenians were very slightly (3 points) more likely to say they would “certainly” or “most probably” vote in a theoretical election held the next Sunday than the population as a whole.

East or west?

When it comes to young Armenians’ geopolitical perspectives, they tend to take a pragmatic approach. CB data shows that among the 45 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds who “rather” or “fully” support membership in the European Union, 63 percent also “rather” or “fully” support membership of the Russia-dominated Eurasian Economic Union, the EAEU. (Among the wider population, 40 percent “fully” or “rather” support EU membership while 47 percent “fully” or “rather” support EAEU membership.) Russia and Europe both, after all, have a strong enough influence on modern Armenian life, and the data suggests that Armenians don’t see much point in picking a side. (The data were collected before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last month, which has hardened regional views both favoring and fearful of Russia).

Given these age differences, do young Armenians resent their parents’ generation? We don’t have data on this question, but the young people have I spoken with said that, for the most part, they do not.

Tatevik, a university student, pointed out that her parents had grown up in an entirely different country, under a system with fewer alternatives. She recalled a conversation with her godfather in 2018 in which she expressed her disappointment with the outcomes of the revolution. He told her: “You may think that you did not succeed, but you proved to my generation that there is an alternative.”

She finds hope in that.

 

Edward Rhŷs Jones is a writer and researcher based in Yerevan, Armenia.

Caucasus Barometer data was provided by the Caucasus Research Resource Center. The author’s attitudes, opinions, and conclusions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the CRRC Armenia.