The 1960's are more than likely regarded as a decade of political and social activism, an era when a number of different social and cultural movements were borne. But new concepts also came to the fore; neo-colonialism, cultural imperialism, etc, which testified to the fact that a number of countries that had thrown off the yoke of colonialism after WWII were being re-colonized and the intense constant debate on the issue. The former colonies discovered that by merely declaring political independence, one does not achieve independence, and that they, albeit in new ways, were once again under the political, economic and cultural domination of foreign powers. Gradually, it became clear that nationalism was wholly ineffective for counterposing the inertia of the colonial legacy, with calls for a return to pre-colonial traditional values and ethnic roots, with the rhetoric of "authentic national" and "unique identity". In particular, this did not allow for an explanation of the permanent traces of colonial history, the hybrid nature and heterogeneities of post-colonial culture...It was necessary to find new ways of relating to the colonial past. At the beginning of the 1990's, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the concept of cultural imperialism and other related concepts, were no longer in vogue. Globalization, the dominant thrust, offered a new vocabulary for speaking about relations between the global and the local. Globalization was interpreted as a complex decentred process. What was stressed was the multi-vector nature of cultural flows, etc. Nevertheless, it was still premature to talk about overcoming the effects of colonialism. In turn, post-Soviet reality possessed glaring peculiarities. First, globalization related to Russia to the same extent (and sometimes in similar ways) than that of the other former subjects of the Soviet Empire. The quick retreat of Russian culture, the Americanization of Russia, the fall of the science and education systems, etc., these were the main themes on the agenda of social discussion. Given these conditions, there could be no talk of Russian cultural domination over other nations. However, on the other hand, post-Soviet countries, even until today (despite the "serious efforts" of European and other collaborative circles to build democracy and a civil society) are still effectively separated from the global capitalist world and this unconquerable divide greatly assists in their remaining within the Russian sphere of influence. It became all together evident during recent years that Russia harbors a great desire to restore its influence over its former "little brothers". If we are talking about Armenia, in the economic and political arenas, Russia has achieved tangible successes and is displaying specific signs for even greater pretensions today. And it is here that we witness the unexpected. A period complete with yearnings to restore cultural influence vis-a-vis former subjects of the Empire, at a time when Russia itself, is culturally on the fringes, in a state of decline. Thus, it is in this context, that the question of establishing foreign language (in reality, primarily Russian language) schools in Armenia takes on added urgency. Even though real steps till now haven't been taken in Armenia regarding its European orientation, it doesn't seem superfluous to add that the growing crisis in some European Union countries reminds one that the external possibilities for Armenia´s European orientation and cooperation are greatly lacking. Trying to understand the complex structure of the Russian orientation of Armenians, let me first underline one trait of the present. It is no secret that the Armenian diaspora that has come about in post-Soviet Russia is prominently involved in internal Armenian life; from the large amounts of private cash transfers to the influence it has on the economic and cultural life in Armenia. This diaspora also plays a tangible role when it comes to realizing growing Russian ambitions regarding Armenia, given that Russia's economic interests and the interests of one group of Russian-Armenians, coincide (especially the issue of Russian capital investment of dubious origin in Armenia). In addition to other things, they finance efforts to expand Russian language centers operating in Armenia and Russian culture in general. The idea of establishing Russian-language schools in Armenia, also stems from this approach. This is where the much ballyhooed "pan-Armenian unity" national ideology, disguising the irreconcilable interests of various segments of the Armenian people, works to the detriment of the national interests of Armenia. As an ideology, modern national consciousness is unavoidably historic, a result of a specific historical reality. To create it, the resources of national history and cultural legacy are employed, but it takes shape under the influence of the dominant ideas and imperatives of the time. Eastern Armenians interacted with the process of modernization through Russian mediation, or more correctly, direction. For almost two hundred years, Russian subjugation has constituted the axis of modern eastern Armenian identity; sanctified by luminaries and in great texts. The blessed moment in Abovyan's novel when "the blessed foot of the Russian entered the verdant land of Armenia", is nothing more than the beginning of the age of modernity in Armenia. In other words, modernity enters Armenia via the Russian foot and, till now, no one has voiced a problem with this paradigmatic linkage of time and space or has considered it out-of-date. Current Armenian culture, especially literary eastern Armenian, took form under the overall dominance of Russian culture and in conditions of majority Russian language presence. I do not at all wish to argue that this influence was always damaging or that it only gave birth to passivity and replication. Moreover, I am not saying that eastern Armenian culture is totally a product of Russian influence, but the modern world reached Armenia via Russian mediation, Russian interpretation and editing, and today, much remains the same. It is our fault that today that Armenian is far from being a contemporary language, from being an effective medium for communication and interpretation. From this viewpoint, it is difficult to precisely evaluate the scope and depth of Russian influence on eastern Armenian - to think about the subjugation of our language, our thinking and our worldview, in that very language, presents a real challenge. There was a need, for example, to reread numerous texts with a critical eye (and corresponding skills), starting from the novel of Abovyan right up till the works, more or less noteworthy, of Soviet Armenian authors. But such endeavors have not been carried out, no reexamination or re-evaluation of texts and their authors has taken place, and now, the uncritical glorification of  “Mer metzere” (“Our great ancestors”) (many of which embody Russian orientation in ways that are self explanatory) unavoidably evolves into a daily ritual of everlasting Russian subjugation. All the while, Abovyan and Tumanyan were not at all uncritical and without reservations when it came to the fact of Russian domination and directly pushed for such a re-reading and re-evaluation. The situation is also hopeless in the area of mass culture. Armenian TV is flooded with innumerable forms of unavoidable forms of Russian presence and influence; from Soviet cartoons and films to Russian language films and programs and their knock-offs. Just count how many times a year the film "The Captive of the Caucasus" is shown on Armenian TV. At the beginning of the 19th century, Pushkin's "The Captive of the Caucasus" launched the start of Russian colonial literature and literary orientalism, where the Caucasus was the Russian Empaire´s "own Orient" (Russia mimicked the West). Later on, Lermontov and Tolstoy developed the subject and it is replayed in the work "Lessons of Armenia" by Andrei Bitov. Soviet cinema is the next re-composition of this colonial theme, where, with new modes, but again with a Russian perspective of evaluation, the myth of the uncivilized East (South) is re-composed, the "exotica" of Caucasian customs and make-up, where, in the final analysis, the Caucasus is presented as an inseparable part of the Russian Empire. Unfortunately, today, it seems more important to carry new idols and myths, or to rearrange the old ones (the TV program "We are Armenian"), rather than a radical re-examination of historical and cultural tradition. The radio commercial for the film, "From Ararat to Sion", urges the listener "to break free from the complex of smallness and to become the master of his/her own history". Of course, it is much easier to refer to the glories of the millennia rather than assume a thousand-year colonial history and marginal existence, which allegedly does not constitute a part of ones history and which the patriots lightly skip over with the euphemism "absence of statehood". It is a history that is deeply stamped on the cultural identity of Armenians, on the ways of perceiving the world and cultural expression. Does the nation need heroes and myths? Perhaps, but the imperative to think about the catastrophic consequences of centuries of subjugation and colonization is no less urgent. These are consequences not at all lost in the depths of history or in some far-off place. They are here, within us.