Search results

Armenia's Velvet Revolution - Why So Overdue? In early April 2018 Armenia completed the transition from semi-presidential rule to a parliamentary republic. Under the slogan 'More power to the people', the ruling Republican Party had paved the way for the incumbent president, Serzh Sargsyan, to continue in power, now as prime minister as his second and final term of presidency was drawing to an end. However, the ensuing events ended with popular protests, the 'Velvet Revolution', which forced Sargsyan and the Republicans out of office. The new administration, led by the former opposition leader Nikol Pashinyan, has ousted several influential leaders and initiated an ambitious anti-corruption programme. Nonetheless, one significant issue remains: early elections that are supposed not only to reflect the prevailing political landscape in Armenia but also reform the country's election laws. What triggered the spring 2018 uprising, when corruption and social discontent have been both well-known and prevalent in Armenia over the past two decades? This article offers insights into the background to the popular uprising, and the relation between Armenia and its large and influential diaspora, citing two main factors for the delay since independence in 1991 – the historical legacy of the perils of internal disunity, together with the effects of the unresolved Karabakh conflict. It concludes with some reflections on the way forward.

March 2018 – and then what? The issue of political succession in Putin's Russia
As president of Russia and a prominent political leader, Vladimir Putin has consistently endeavoredto legitimize his rule by appealing to central political myths and taken-for-granted truths inRussian society. In rhetoric and official communication, he emerges as the guarantor of domesticorder and stability, the protector of traditional values, and a staunch advocate of Russia'sstatus and position as a great power in a world often depicted as hostile. What is being communicatedhere, and apparently finds resonance among broad segments of public opinion, is thaton all these parameters Putin is uniquely qualified to lead Russia. Four times in the course of18 years, Putin has been elected president in the first round of elections, and throughout thisperiod he has received high rankings in regular monthly opinion polls. However, his legitimationstrategies have been so firmly linked to the persona of Putin that we may speak of an emergingdilemma with his fourth presidency. Who could fill his shoes as his successor? The articleanalyzes this dilemma, taking its point of departure in Weber's seminal theorizing on types oflegitimate authority and the routinization of charisma. It discusses the evident dearth of crediblesuccessor candidates, and concludes by discussing possible actions for dealing with or postponingthe issue of succession.

Abstract: Russia's operationalization of a sphere of interest in the South CaucasusA central foreign policy objective of Russia is to maintain an exclusive sphere of interest in its post-Soviet neighbourhood. This article analyses how Russia employs a combination of political and military instruments in operationalizing its perceived sphere of interest in the still conflict-ridden South Caucasus. Russia is the only external power in the region to have military bases there, and is the only one seemingly ready to undertake military action. At present, Russia appears satisfied with the status quo in the South Caucasus. The unresolved conflicts in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh are therefore unlikely to be resolved in the near future. Unresolved conflicts suit Russia's objectives. Russian military bases in Georgia and Armenia provide Moscow with both a key lever against Tbilisi and Yerevan and a structural advantage for potential Russian military operations in the region. Russia's military posture in the Caucasus is relevant to the potential for large-scale conflict in the Southern war theatre, including the wider Middle East, and not just local conflicts in the Caucasus.

Danish images of Russia in the 2010sThis article surveys how the editorial columns of five leading Danish newspapers treat Russia in the 2010s, building on an earlier study which focused on the first decade of the 2000s (Hansen 2010). The present study finds that the overall negative trajectory associated with Russia has continued, even grown more pronounced. In response, a minority position has developed on the fringes of political life in Denmark, holding that Russia is being demonized and that media coverage is too negative and essentially one-sided. The Danish newspapers surveyed focus on what is seen as an increasingly aggressive Russia violating borders and other established norms, and threatening its neighbours. The editorials reflect the gradual paradigm shift in views of Russia. They now speak openly of the need for Denmark to protect itself and its allies militarily against possible Russian aggression and to prevent Russia from wielding more power through its energy supplies to Europe, including supplies that traverse Danish territorial waters. Other topics in focus include Russia's invasion and subsequent annexation of Crimea, its involvement in the war in Eastern Ukraine as well as its military campaign in Syria.