RSC
Featured

RSC PRESS CONFERENCE ON UKRAINE

Media

RSC PRESS CONFERENCE ON UKRAINE

The Peoplemeter Press Club hosted Regional Studies Center (RSC) Director Richard Giragosian for a press conference on February 26 to assess recent developments in Ukraine. After an introduction by Peoplemeter Press Club director Tehmina Arzumanyan, Giragosian opened the press conference by briefly presenting the broader context of the crisis in Ukraine, before focusing on the impact on the European Union (EU) and Russia.

.

Concerning the impact of Ukraine on the EU, Giragosian noted that the change in government in Kiev will actually “save and salvage the December 2013 Vilnius Summit, and strengthen the EU association agreements, as Ukraine will bolster the outlook for EU ties with Georgia and Moldova,” adding that it will also “inject new energy into Eastern Partnership.” More significantly, he explained that the “Ukrainian demonstrators succeeded in defining, defending and vindicating genuine European values defended, defined and vindicated.” The final implication for the EU was a “refocus of strategic significance – of both Ukraine and the EU.

In terms of the impact on Russia, Giragosian argued that events in Ukraine “demonstrated the inherent limits of Russian influence, especially as Moscow was never able to play a role as a broker or mediator, and could not directly intervene, explaining that Kiev was not Prague, Budapest or Tbilisi, but more like Romania and East Germany in the Cold War period.” A second implication for Moscow was the “loss of Ukraine for Russia’s Customs Union/Eurasian Union project.”

He went on to say that events in Ukraine also “revealed Russian President Putin’s position of weakness” and was “a message to other former Soviet states that they can succeed in saying no to Moscow.” Moreover, Giragosian contended that Ukraine also resulted in “a new situation for Moscow where its sphere of influence became more of a sphere of insignificance of Russian power and influence, noting the limits of coercion over seduction, and pressure over appeal. And on a broader level, he added that the “future of a possible democratic Ukraine would pose an important and powerful threat to Putin’s hold over Russia.”

Yet there were also two significant positive impacts on Russia, however. First, the “demise of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was not a serious loss for Moscow, as Yanukovych was never a trusted or even well-liked ally of Putin and effectively ended the former president’s strategy of ‘complementarity,’ or playing Russia off the West.” Second, for Moscow, “stability in Ukraine is a much more important objective for Russia than weakness and unrest of even a generally compliant state.”

Giragosian went on to assess the outlook for the future of the new Ukrainian government and added an analysis of the specific lessons for the Armenian government and opposition. Although he stressed that “Ukraine is different from Armenia,” he noted that “there are some similarities, such as socioeconomic discontent, potential social unrest and a lack of legitimacy of the Armenian government.” But, he argued, “the political systems (in each country) are different and civil society in Armenia does not have the same level of unity or organization.”

In terms of lessons learned, Giragosian explained that “for the Armenian government, events in Ukraine clearly show the “danger of underestimating ‘street power’ and overestimating use of force,” adding that “a lack of legitimacy limits the acceptable use of force.” A related lesson for the Armenian authorities “stems from the need to better understand the ‘tipping point’ of power, and when to compromise, as a strong and not necessarily weak move, and when to concede.” Most notably, Giragosian pointed to the fact that it is “dangerous for any incumbent government to ignore popular demands for change and expectations of reform,” and warned of the “backlash from the wealth and corruption revealed from exposing the ‘arrogance of power,’ as seen in Kiev.”

Giragosian also pointed to several lessons for the Armenian opposition, including the “challenge of harnessing the ‘momentum of protest,’ as popular discontent is a powerful and spontaneous force, but must be nurtured and mentored, which requires three prerequisites: (1) leadership, (2) organization and (3) strategic vision.” He added that the lessons from Ukraine further reveal the need for the Armenian opposition to recognize that “innovation and new tactics are crucial” and that “geography is key, as regional pressure divides and dilutes state security forces and weakness their response, as political activity must expand into regions and not simply be limited to the capital city.”

The press conference was widely covered by the Armenian media, and for some of the more significant articles, see below:

 

Armenian-language coverage:

 

English-language coverage:


Russian-language coverage