After the nomination of Levon Ter-Petrosyan the electoral processes of Armenia, and the race between the government and the opposition were understood as the competition of certain geopolitical poles to have dominance in Armenia. At least the whole campaign activity of the government during the official campaign period was aimed at proving to the society that the orientation of the radical opposition is aimed at the west and that the latter are just carrying out the orders of the west. The opposition in its turn was against considering their people’s movement as an order from the west. Moreover, they were trying to give a new formulation to the pan-national movement in order to exclude the interference of the foreign forces. The opposition was on the other hand trying to maintain the impression that the west is supporting their activities by naming it the will of the people or a democratic movement. During the last decade the development of political technologies clearly states that the geopolitical centers with their approaches and goals have two different directions and orientations, which are aimed at spreading their influence in the country. The first approach assumes a harsh and sometimes even a direct interference in the internal affairs of the country. In this case the geopolitical pole shows a strategic and financial support to its strategic partner without considering the opinion of the people. They even show military support. The second approach is built on the will and goals of the targeted people which ultimately enable the interested super state to use the goals of the people on its own behalf. This political approach is recently called color or silk revolution. If we review the recent electoral and post-electoral processes in Armenia in regard of the two approaches than we can claim that Armenia has turned into a wonderful field of experiments and still continues to be one like that. It’s not hard to assume that Russia and the USA, which symbolize the two geopolitical poles, have started to follow the developments in Armenia long before the campaign. However the peculiarity of the processes in Armenia is that in the geopolitical influence aspect this time everything is not so definite and simple. And the actions of the main geopolitical actors in some cases were not only surprising but also deeply disappointing for the main participants of the electoral processes in Armenia. At first sight it seems that Russia has used the first technological scenario for Armenia by relying on its traditional methods, thus trying to maintain its own influence in its outpost by the reproduction of the government of its main strategic partner. Shortly said, it treated to Armenia the way it treated to its former CIS “friend states”. On the background of such expectations the behavior of the Russian governmental circles, which meant to be extremely cautious, was very surprising. This tactics of rating has made the Armenian government more nervous and on the other hand encouraged the opposition especially when it became known that Ter-Petrosyan paid a visit to Moscow. It’s not an accident that the leaders of the opposition have not made any criticizing statement about the government of the Russian Federation. By the way it is interesting that during one of his last interviews to Russian newspapers Ter-Petrosyan mentioned that he found the Russian attitude to the Armenian opposition quite neutral which is equivalent to showing approach to the opposition. It’s not hard to assume that the second technological approach is ascribed to the West and specifically to the US. However unlike other states which have been through revolutions the western pole has surprisingly appeared in the criticism field of the opposition and not Russia. And in fact while the Armenian government was blaming the opposition of receiving financial and political support from British and American circles to organize a revolution the Armenian radical opposition in its turn continued expressing its complained about the inaction and passiveness of the western structures in regard of the situation created in the country. As it’s known this discontent was originated on the first days of post-electoral period. That is when the international monitors gave more than a soft conclusion about the February 19 presidential elections of Armenia. On those days Levon Ter-Petrosyan has even made harsh criticizing statements during his recent rallies addressed to international organizations which apply dual standards on democratic processes in Armenia. Even after the interim report of the international monitoring mission which was quit criticizing and was released after the March 1 events did not alleviate the tension in the country and did not reduce discontent of the radical opposition regarding the activity of the West. Thus it became obvious that the expectations of the radical opposition were so much more from the West than from Russia. However it did not come true. And even at the end of February Ter-Petrosyan’s team realized that their scenario of receiving the support from the West did not come true. Having said that the West principally did not mind the reproduction of the RA government with the condition that the incumbent government would fulfill its promises (NKR conflict, relations with the NATO, communication with Iran, diversification of the economy, etc.). Despite the fact that the Armenian elections have never been thoroughly analyzed by the international structures the attitude of the radical opposition still remains unchanged. It also found its reflection in the petition of Ter-Petrosyan addressed to the hunger strikers, which implied elements of disappointment of the West. Specifically Ter-Petrosyan mentioned “the West was sufficed with only at the first side harsh and irresponsible statements which held the reproduction of current government. By following political goals and dual standards instead of holding on the Armenian civil society encouraged by democracy, ideas of liberty and freedom the European organizations supported the illegal government. The West preferred to see a totalitarian state in Armenia which would lack legitimacy and trust of the society.” Nevertheless as a conclusion we may say that the West follows long run goals in Armenia and that Armenia still has to go through a lot on the way of democratization. But at the stage the West doesn’t really mind the reproduction of the Armenian government, of course if it doesn’t refuse to fulfill the promises of the government. In this regard it is noteworthy to mention the statement of the Charge d’affaires of the US embassy Joseph Pennington, according to which “the US finds that the Armenian government must be given an opportunity to return the country back on democratic rails.” It’s not an accident that during his press-conference the American diplomat has spoken about the evolutional development of the Armenian democracy.
