Day of May 9, 2018, the new Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan held in Nagorno-Karabakh. It would seem that nothing new and unexpected is in this: the Armenian leaders always spend important for themselves and the country days in the territory of the self-proclaimed republic. I would say differently: the peculiarity of the Armenian news is that nothing new is happening. Even after a popular uprising.
Nikol Pashinyan constantly emphasizes the peculiarity of this insurrection and its difference from what happened earlier in the post-Soviet space. Perhaps this is not even a political gesture aimed at reassuring Russia, but a sincere conviction of a man whose life and political activities take place in a sealed provincial society lagging behind the trends of world history. I met Ukrainian politicians who were convinced of the uniqueness of the Maidan. And Georgians, confident of the uniqueness of the "Rose Revolution".
I'm not going to belittle the significance of all these events. But all the uprisings always resemble one another. A popular uprising, no matter who organizes it, is always a protest against injustice. That is why the most interesting begins not in time, but after a successful uprising. Because after that it becomes clear whether the vector of the country's development has changed.
In Georgia and Ukraine, after the "Rose Revolution" and after the Maidan 2013-2014, the vector change from pro-Russian to western was obvious. In Georgia, the vector change was combined with anti-corruption efforts. In Ukraine today there is a substitution of the vector change with the fight against corruption - if a part of society does not understand the fact that it is the change of the vector, the final and irrevocable break with Russia, sooner or later will lead to a victory over the corruption way of life. And this misunderstanding is what makes modern Ukraine with modern Armenia.
Because in Armenia they try to explain the country's problems with corruption and clan dominance. Corruption and clan domination are, of course, very bad. But the main problem of the country is its geopolitical futility. On the neck of Armenia the hinge of the Karabakh conflict is thrown over, it does not allow the state to breathe - but the state, instead of trying to loosen the noose, is struggling with its own bothersome parasitic insects.
The revolution of despair begins to change the country only when society is ready to learn the truth about itself and its problems and when the leaders of the revolution have the courage to tell this truth. The new people's leader had a chance to tell people the truth. The truth about what really hinders Armenia. The truth is that without the resolution of the Karabakh conflict, the Armenian statehood will remain statehood of the besieged fortress, depending on the mood of the Kremlin. But Pashinyan, from the very first day after his election as prime minister, tries to prove that the Armenian policy is unchangeable. Maybe because it depends even more on popular sentiment than its predecessors. And maybe because he himself does not know the truth.
what will happen next? Pashinyan will make ardent speeches, win in parliamentary elections, establish himself as the undisputed leader of the country - or, on the contrary, in a few months will be perceived by his supporters yesterday as a windbag.
But most importantly - poverty and hopelessness will not go anywhere from the Armenian house. So - there will be a natural disappointment in the uprising. Why did you go out into the street? This is what Russian propaganda is so fond of replicating from Ukrainian social networks: why did they go to the Maidan? What allows the Kremlin to treat the Armenian uprising is calmer than to the Ukrainian one. Because it must once again convince the Russians of the uselessness of all Maidan and other revolutions.
Original.