Key words – Armenia, identity, coherent vision, identity crisis, the principle of justice, bourgeoisization, social ideology.
The main tragedy of modern Armenian society, which turned out to be a whirlpool of internal and external complex and contradictory processes, is the lack of a vision of coexistence together with universal human content. In order to turn the national goals into a political plane, Armenia must become a tempting social environment that will attract Armenians as a magnet. This is hampered by the fact that in Armenia today there are no minimum conditions for the formation of a national environment of coexistence, that is, the formation of common interests and aspirations of an individual, society and state based on the principle of justice, which gives each of them a clear clear vision of a common future. On the contrary, a hedonistic society was formed in modern Armenia. And the younger generation, brought up by such a society, is infected with the same diseases. Overcoming the crisis of self-identification in modern Armenian society by creating a vision of a common future means the formation of the new ideal of Armenia that will fight against the general bourgeoisization of the country. This vision presupposes the existence of a social ideology. Only in the process of formation of internal equilibrium, a new perception of one’s own identity arises, in which the national memory turns into a totality of trembling modern biorhythms.
Key words – Iraqi Kurdistan, Eastern Question, Armenian Question, Kurdish Question, Treaty of Sèvres, Alliance between Lenin and Ataturk, Khoyboun, Treaty of Saadabad, Abdullah Ocalan, Kurdistan Workers’ Party.
The geopolitical processes that began after the referendum of the Iraqi Kurdistan on September 25, 2017 come from both the current political calculations of separate states and the strategic goals of transforming the entire region. In order to neutralize the influence of the Russian «hammer» in the north of our region, the United States has already secured its presence in Georgia, therefore, while when forming the Iraqi Kurdistan, which casts doubt on the integrity of the Turkish «anvil», geopolitical pressure on the two geopolitical «locks» of our region begins. The first of these is based on the agreements signed by Lenin and Ataturk in 1920s. Relatively speaking, this is the «lock» put on the Armenian question, and the second one is the «lock» put on the Kurdish question, i. e. the Saadabad pact in 1930s. The first «lock» closes the future geopolitical changes in the vertical, and the second one – horizontally. And this means that, as in the past, so today, the fate of Armenians and Kurds intersect with each other, but this time not in the form of a head-on collision of mutual interests, but in the form of intersections of two neighboring geopolitical «prisons cells».
The program of fragmentation of the region is impossible without Armenia’s active participation. And in this case we do not pretend to the territory of «Great Armenia», as Wilson’s Armenia and the Republic of Armenia together with Artsakh and Nakhijevan make up one third of the historical lands of Armenia. On November 22, 1920, with his wise arbitration award, the President of the United States, the greatest Democrat of the time, W. Wilson clearly divided the historical territories of Armenia into three parts, so that none of the three parties – Kurds, Turks and Armenians, would be unhappy. This was the verdict of a civilized world, the implementation of which was postponed due to the formation of the alliance between Lenin and Ataturk, but not removed from the strategic agenda of the superpowers.