Karine Gevorgyan, a well-known Russian political scientist and orientalist, discussed with our correspondent acute foreign policy events, the situation around Russia and development prospects. Here is the beginning of the conversation, continuation on GEOFOR will follow.
- Karine Alexandrovna, in one of your interviews you said that sometimes you read Scripture as a political approach to today’s events. How did you come to this method of geopolitical forecasts?
- The religious way of cognition differs from the scientific one fundamentally only in one way — it describes the beginning and the end. This is due to the fact that the people who created the Scriptures or broadcast them to us understood global trends and saw how it could end. For example, there is a religious prohibition against lending interest in the form of money. Loan interest in material form — grain — is also limited, but not forbidden. Because the creators of Scripture understood what the iterations would be — money would turn into «fluff», become nothing, like digital money is now. They didn’t know that money would be called digital money, but they understood the very trend. It’s the same in other directions.
There is a concept of balance (analogy: the law of conservation of energy). And if some component is overloaded, which allows you to get rich, to move forward, to dominate, the pendulum will still swing the other way. They understood this too.
I study not so much the Old Testament, which the book Folklore in the Old Testament by the English scientist J. G. Frazer helps me to understand. I have always been more interested in the New Testament. After all, we are living in the end times — the Eschaton — and I see a political component in the events described in the four Gospels, in the Epistles, and in the Acts of the Apostles. These people walked the earth, saw those on whom something depended in terms of decision-making — this intrigue must be understood.
I even asked in confession: is it forbidden for me to ask questions? For example, the events on the Mount of Olives. It is clear to me as a political scientist: two detachments come: a detachment from the Prosecutor and a detachment from the High Priest. What does this mean: why two? Why not one? It’s strange, and at the very least, it suggests that they don’t trust each other. This is circumstantial evidence.
But there are some cooler questions. If the Lord could create the descendants of Abraham «out of these stones», as John the Baptist said, then I have a question, «Why there and then?» The Lord who was taking confession, laughing, said to me, “You have no right to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, but to seek answers…. Scripture is for that purpose, so that man creatively seeks answers and finds them».
So I’m interested in the Gospel events as political events. Because it is not about anyone, but about imperial Rome, with which it is connected, there are real characters there. The events that took place before the birth of the Savior must be investigated. At what moment He is born, and what is the political situation there, what are the relationships of certain groups. Why do the Pharisees — St. Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea — defend His innocence at the Sanhedrin and then flee altogether? Because they have to go into hiding in order to avoid reprisals. These are real people. There’s some very serious intrigue there.
And who is Pontius Pilate, a man of that time? What does he worship? If you scratch your finger a little bit — he is a Mithraist, i.e. he worships Mithra. And who are the Pharisees? And they are, among other things, Persianizers, they sympathize not with Rome, like Sadducees, but with Iran, which is not far away.
After that, the worship of the Magi. In all the books they are designated as magicians, which is the term for the “clergy” of the Zoroastrian cult. Hence, the ministers of the Zoroastrian cult come to worship the Savior. What does that mean? It means that we in Christianity have great respect for the first religion of Revelation, Zoroastrianism, even though nothing is said about it. And then think about it further.
- Now a question for you, as an orientalist political scientist.
Russia and Turkey have been opposing sides throughout history. Recently, we have seen a rapprochement between the two countries. But Turkey promises to build a factory for the production of “bayraktars” in Ukraine; it pursues its national policy in Azerbaijan; it shows maps on which Russian territories are part of the Great Turan; Iran declares that it will not tolerate any encroachment on the integrity of Armenia, as it considers it a blow to its sovereignty. At the same time, Russia is more oriented towards cooperation with Turkey. Maybe the Turkish President has some trump cards?
- Yes, of course. This is a transit territory. But I believe that there is no rapprochement between the countries. Business interests — yes, but not rapprochement. Russia is an undefeated enemy for Turkey, as Turkey is for Russia. But there is interaction. We are neighbors. There is no other way. Why are we creating such expensive facilities, and even with our own money? If relations are good, why not, and if they are bad, maybe we will get these facilities. The Akkuyu NPP is quite close to the Syrian border.
As for Iran, we have nothing to share with it. There is a completely different paradigm of historical political action here. It is an old empire, just like Russia. Of course, it is older by 1,500 years, but nevertheless, it has a different political tradition, and there is no animosity here. We have no need to fight. Therefore, either Russia or Iran should be in Transcaucasia as a mandated territory. After all, the peoples of the Caucasus are divided among themselves, and I do not see any major politicians after Heydar Aliyev. He could make Transcaucasia a subject of world politics. For this purpose, it was not enough to reach an agreement with Georgia, acting delicately; it was not enough to kiss Armenians on the forehead so that they wanted to be a part of Azerbaijan. Nothing was done, everyone was separated in different directions. Therefore, it is either a territory of influence and support of Russia or Iran.
Unlike Turkey, Iran does not squander resources to keep peoples who don’t want to live in it. This is very important. Iran does not seize problematic territories, because any such territory must be held. After all, it is on the periphery, on the border, and this is quite difficult. Notice how much the Empire and the Soviet Union were criticized, which acted correctly, but as a result, life in the periphery was more prosperous than in central Russia. These republics gave a lot of things. It is wrong to accuse them of being pure freeloaders. By 1960, for example, the whole territory of Armenia, which is mountainous and difficult, was electrified, telephonized and gasified. Why? Because literally across the border stood the 3rd Field Army of Turkey and the American NATO base on Ararat. Therefore, it was necessary to create such conditions.
In the early 60’s Armenia was poor like everyone else. I lived in Moscow and came to visit, I was 5 years old, but I remember everything, it was very poor. And by the 70s, life in Armenia, even compared to life in Moscow, had risen to a higher level. And it was very noticeable. But it was necessary.
It was the same with the Baltics. And then they all turned up their noses and decided that they were so good, they had achieved everything by themselves. Everyone was caught up in ambitions and myths. Now there is a return of consciousness. This is interestingly manifested in the Baltics. In TikTok there was a remake of the song «Victory Day». An Estonian sings: «we will flee to Russia, where people are kinder, and vodka tastes better, and there is enough bread and gas for everyone». The authorities there will still maintain their grip, although such sentiments are brewing in society.
This is not the case in the Transcaucasus. Armenia was pro-Russian for a very long time. Now it is turning around. There, such processes as in the Baltics can begin no sooner than in five years. Because all omissions and mistakes are that «they will not go anywhere», «they are in our pocket», «we are standing there». This is how Ukraine was missed, and the same methodologies are used by the leadership and societies along borders. At the same time, we say to all others, including Iran: “Don’t worry, we are standing here, everything will be fine. But Russia is unable to hold Armenia physically, especially since it is engaged in the Ukrainian theater of military operations.
It is the same in Georgia. Anti-Western sentiments are growing. You see that the ruling party wants to impeach President Zurabishvili, who seems to be French, but in reality is a pro-American aunt. In Georgia — the same trend as in the Baltics. Azerbaijan, on the other hand, is brutally sharpened against Russia.
I posted in my Telegram channel a very significant speech of A. Efendiyev at the GUAM session in August this year. He is the Secretary General of this organization, which includes Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova. Listen to what he says about Russia, what an aggressor it is. And he has the rank of Extraordinary Plenipotentiary Ambassador. What do you think: can such a thing be said by a person whose opinion does not coincide with the opinion of the head of state? Russia has allied relations with Azerbaijan, but everything is against this alliance. At the same time, Yerevan sees it and realizes that Azerbaijan is more valuable for Russia than Armenian interests. I am not talking about N. Pashinyan now. So far there is no domestic Russophobia in Armenia and, God willing, there will be no it towards Russian people, towards the sound of the Russian language. Of course, NGOs can recruit crazy people who will do it, I don’t exclude it. But in principle there is no such problem in the society. Armenians are very tolerant in this respect. Maybe that’s why they live in different countries and realize that a person living outside of their homeland is always vulnerable. There is always some kind of such feeling.
To be continued.