Markar Melkonian’s recent piece, Armenia: Return of the Russophobes elicited many comments. Given the scope of Markar's response, we’ve decided to publish it separately. Here it is…enjoy!

Thank you, commentators, for your remarks.  I appreciate them and take them seriously.  I am surprised by the unanimous disapproval, but not much.  I’ve seen this sort of thing before.  If the Western pollsters are right, though, Russophobia is still a minority attitude in Armenia.  I have several responses to the comments.  Because the “Comments” section loses paragraph formatting, I will enumerate them, to indicate separate points:  

(i) Harry wrote that I should have suggested that Armenia run an independent domestic/foreign policy while trying somehow not to alienate Russia in the process.  Sure, as far as it goes, why not?  But what constitutes an “independent foreign/domestic policy?  It’s not as if that were a self-explaining suggestion.  This is the crux of the matter. But then I’m not in the business of providing advice to Armenia’s capitalist rulers, and none of them are going to listen to people like me anyway. 

(ii)  Raffi made a good point when he wrote that we should avoid “simplistic straw man arguments.”  In view of the dismal state of political discourse in Armenia, I wonder why he chose to take me to task for being simplistic.  Raffi, have you ever posted on Lragir.am to criticize them for simplistic straw man arguments?  

(iii)  The “simplistic” criticism is especially interesting, in view of the fact that I’ve been accused of trying to popularize a perspective that, it is said, is too complex and critical for general consumption.  Here’s one example of pervasive simplistic thinking that I have tried (and so far failed!) to challenge:  the very notion of “national interests” should be problematized.  When, for example, we speak of “Armenia” running an independent policy, what exactly are we to understand by that?  As it turns out, a serious discussion of the term “national interests” might well lead us far far away from the simplistic assumptions of one or two of the commentators.  But are we ready for this discussion?  

(iv)  A related point:  to my knowledge, none of the current crop of Russophobes has once acknowledged that Armenia’s poor and working class majority has no political power.  What could the Russophobes’ “independence” mean for them?  Especially in view of the fact that so many of them depend on remittances from family in Russia.  

(v) Armenia’s ruling class is not a national bourgeoisie—not for the most part, anyway.  Their interests, their continued political and economic power, is tied to the power of foreign capitals--and foreign capital.  In Armenia, that power happens to be largely (but not exclusively) Russian.  In one hundred other member states of the UN, that power happens to reside almost exclusively in Washington DC.  So, if Armenia is not “independent,” in some vague and relative sense of the word, then it would seem that it is just a normal country these days.  

(vi) Let us get real here.  This is not about friends or enemies or good or bad intentions:  for people like me, those words are irrelevant to state power.  It is not an accident or an optional detail that Armenia’s ruling class is the way it is--whether under the present administration, under the previous government, and even under the Russophobe LTP administration.  But to my knowledge at least, the recent crop of Russophobes has never offered anything in the way of a realistic alternative—unless repeating the disastrous policies of the early years of LTP’s administration counts as an alternative. 

(vii) None of the commentators has disputed my contention that the further expansion of NATO missiles poses a danger to Armenia.  That’s interesting.  And yet none of them has voiced opposition to the Lragir demand that Armenia should not even raise a voice in protest.  Do the commentators agree with Lragir’s position?  

 (viii)  A commentator described Russia as imperialist.  For the record:  Yes, the Russian Federation is indeed imperialist, in the technical Leninist sense of that word.  People like me certainly have no illusions about that.  Indeed, to people like me, the emergence of Russia as an imperialist power was a foreseeable consequence of the destruction of the Soviet Union.  

(ix) Now review the statements of the Russophobe opposition.  They denounce Russia for every imaginable (and imagined) sin under the sun.  But when have they ever voiced a word of criticism of the United States of America?  Review events of the past twelve years.  What country in the past years has made the lives of more Armenians miserable than the United States of America and its allies in Ankara and Tel Aviv?  What country has turned the lives of more Armenian children into a living hell than America and its surrogates in Iraq and Syria?  In the past ten years, what country has destroyed ancient communities in Iraq and Syria?  Killed 300 unarmed Armenians so far?  Turned 100,000 Armenians into refugees, and destroyed the lives and dreams of tens of thousands of our compatriots?  You’d never guess it from Lragir, but it wasn’t Russia that did this.  And yet, as far as I can tell, not a word of disapproval from the Russophobes in Yerevan.  

(x) The previous point is especially noteworthy, in view of the fact that some of the Russophobes put so much emphasis on the role of Iran as a counterbalance to Russian interests.  Leaving aside the fact that Iran itself has tried to draw closer to Russia, what will happen when the next occupant of the White House gets Iran in her crosshairs?   

(xi)  I wonder if the commentators appreciate, really, how dangerous this game is that the Russophobes are playing.  

(xii)  Speaking of simplistic straw man arguments, what are we to make of Miatsum’s magical “Soviet Stalinist” cliché?  And why does he single out RT for special censure?  Because it doesn’t meet the standards of objectivity of CNN and Fox News?  

(xiii)  One commentator asked what Monte Melkonian might think of all of this.  I invite him to consult the discussions in Part Two of The Right to Struggle, entitled “Defining Armenian National Self-Determination,” and Monte’s essay, “Reflection on Counterproductive Thinking,” in the same book.  Among other things, Monte described the demand for “independence” from the Soviet Union as a demand for “national self-termination.”  Do the reading and come to your own conclusions.  You might be surprised to discover that Monte was not the rah-rah “get off my lawn,” Armenians-as-a-Chosen-People” idiot that some people think he was.  In any case, I do not tailor my views to agree with Monte’s (those who knew Monte know that he would not want anyone to do that), and I do not invoke anyone else’s authority to underwrite my arguments. 

(xiv) Miatsum described my views as those of a “neomarxist.”  I’m not sure I know what a neomarxist is.  Is Lenin one?