We have already proved that we are Russia’s friend; the time for appeasing it is over

First Informational’s interviewee is expert Arbak Khachatryan (Russia, Moscow).

— Mr. Khachatryan, how do you assess the quality of Armenian-Russian relations at this stage? Recently there have often been comments that Armenia’s authorities pursue a policy of pleasing Moscow and constantly justify themselves. Do you have that impression?

— It is very important to build relations on honest terms. If someone is not honest with you, those relations must be broken off, whichever country is involved. We live in a period when relations with one country may be good today and break off tomorrow, depending on how interests and the situation develop at that moment. We have asked ourselves: what policy does Russia pursue toward us, how does it position itself in relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan, and is its strategic ally Armenia its priority, or does it pursue other interests?

I think relations must be built on an equal-to-equal basis, which is not especially evident today. A policy of pleasing and playing games would be a major mistake for us; we no longer have time for it. If Armenia sees Russia trampling its interests and cooperating with its enemies, this must be stated clearly. We proved we are Russia’s friend; there is no further need to please it.

— Do you think Armenia’s authorities are already accepted in Russia? The issue seems to concern some personnel who previously represented civil society and were financed by various international organizations; the prime minister recently mentioned this too. What are your observations?

— We should not look at whom Russia accepts and whom it does not. Work must be done. True, these young people lack experience and do not pursue their predecessors’ policy, and that is good because the people did not give them a mandate for that. Certain people in Russia must gradually get used to this. Armenia now pursues a policy arising from its interests, and everyone must accept that. Armenia must not ask Russia whom it may appoint to any post; those times have long passed. Until now, Moscow was accustomed to saying: this is our country; we will appoint whomever we want. Did you not find it strange that all former officials had Russian citizenship? What absurdity was that?

— Clearly, Moscow is not especially pleased with developments in Armenia concerning the 1 March case; we constantly witness this on various Russian television channels. What should we expect in Armenian-Russian relations after the investigation ends?

— No danger should be expected. Everything depends on the individual. In Russia, some people were accustomed to working with the former authorities’ representatives; they had personal, financial and, why not, corrupt relationships. Now I am astonished listening to Kocharyan’s lawyers and others: people emigrated, people were thrown in prison, and nobody defended them then. Nobody spoke about the law or knew where international legal bodies were. People had businesses taken away and were forced to emigrate; who defended them? They did not even have money for lawyers. Where do they now get so much money to retain dozens of lawyers? Does nobody ask? When people were beaten and jailed then, international norms were not violated, but now, look, they are: they appeal to Russia and Europe—come and save us.

— Why does Russia hold on tooth and nail to Mikayel Harutyunyan, who plays a key role in the 1 March case?

— I have already commented on this once and would not want to repeat myself. But whether it is Mikayel Harutyunyan or Poghos Poghosyan, if he is a Russian citizen, they have no right to hand him over. Let the investigative bodies go, reach agreement with Russia and conduct the investigation there. Whoever appointed him defense minister knowing he was a Russian citizen must answer. By what right was a Russian citizen appointed defense minister? I do not consider it the right approach simply to say now that Russia will not hand him over. Those who appointed him minister must answer: a gross mistake was made, and it should not now be blamed on Russia. Russia will not surrender its citizen; we must speak with facts and present demands elsewhere. If Mikayel Harutyunyan were not a Russian citizen, they would hand him over with great pleasure.

— Clearly, Russia’s leadership regards Kocharyan as one of its own, and it is somewhat hard to imagine his arrest having no effect on Armenian-Russian relations.

— I think there will be no concrete responses: officials will not react sharply; experts pursuing material gain and people of that kind will speak. Naturally, Kocharyan is one of their own—he transferred every strategically important facility to Russia. Why would he not be?

— So it now appears Pashinyan is “not to Moscow’s liking” for precisely the same reason.

— Yes, but even by giving up Kocharyan, Russia has, by and large, gained nothing. Clearly, the former authorities were more convenient for Russia; they took Russia’s leader into account, and these reactions are connected precisely with that.