Kevin Vandenboss,

In a significant escalation of its retaliatory measures against “unfriendly” states amid heightened geopolitical tensions, Russia has seized assets of the agricultural holdings company AgroTerra Group. The move, announced on April 8, 2024, has sent shockwaves through the agricultural sector and raised concerns over food security and international trade relations.

President Vladimir Putin’s decree places Dutch-registered firms AgroTerra Investments B.V. and AgroTerra Holdings B.V. under the “temporary management” of Rosimushchestvo, Russia’s federal property management agency. This action follows a series of similar asset seizures targeting Western companies, including multinational brewer Carlsberg and dairy giant Danone, which have sought to divest their Russian operations in response to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

AgroTerra, founded in 2008, is a major player in the agricultural industry, specializing in the production and supply of commodities such as soybeans, wheat and sugar beet. The company is recognized as one of the top 20 largest owners of agricultural land in Russia, with a cultivated area of approximately 265,000 hectares (654,829 acres).

The decree’s impact on AgroTerra’s operations remains uncertain. A spokesperson for the company stated, “As of now, the Company has not yet received any further details regarding the decree on the transfer of shares within the authorized capital of the AgroTerra Group to the temporary management of Rosimushchestvo.” Despite the lack of clarity, the company has assured that it is continuing its operations as usual, with a primary focus on the ongoing sowing campaign.

This seizure is part of a broader trend of Russia targeting foreign-owned assets in retaliation for sanctions and other measures taken against Russian companies abroad. In April 2023, Putin signed an executive order allowing Russia to take over real estate, securities, property rights and other assets from foreign companies with ties to “unfriendly countries.”

The implications of these actions extend beyond the affected companies and their shareholders. They pose a threat to the global agricultural supply chain, potentially disrupting food production and exports. Furthermore, the move could exacerbate tensions between Russia and Western countries, further complicating efforts to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and stabilize international relations.

Garegin Vardanyan

Whether some people like it or not, we have to admit that in the last three decades, Armenians have created the most monstrous police force in the world. During this so-called “independent” period, a part of the people in the country, with a population of about 3.5 million, emigrated, and the rest were condemned to a hellish life. The economy built during the Soviet regime, left as a legacy from those years, was almost wholly destroyed; factories and enterprises were looted, machine tools and equipment were destroyed, and everything was wasted, and today, the warring country is left almost defenseless against the age-old enemy. The condition of the army is the most deplorable. Many of the participants of the war, especially the more famous officers, are arrested and imprisoned, and their services are treated with contempt and ridicule. But the condition of ordinary soldiers is much more difficult. In the front line, the trenches are in the spirit of the 80s of the last century, the dugouts are mostly underground and dilapidated or literally in the open air. And here, the country’s police is flourishing day by day.

In terms of political science, the country has become an open, deep, heavy police state. The real owner of the country is the self-satisfied policeman who loyally serves the authorities. My senior friend from Yerevan tells. “It was in 1992-93. the soviet had just collapsed, it was half-starved: there was no gas or electricity, there were no traffic lights and no policemen on the streets. Those who bought a few liters of gasoline drove a car, gave way to each other at the intersections, and we lived in harmony and peace like that. When the authorities got comfortable in their seats, Vano, the police chief at that time, said to the policemen: why are you sitting idly in your seats, go out into the street, turn on the traffic lights, fine the drivers, judge, intimidate, if you have to go to jail, but bring money. It started from that day, and as it went on, the Armenian policeman became more and more “insolent”, “disgusted”, became fat, became an unpunished beast and began to persecute Armenians, citizens, ravage and empty the country.

The fact that during rallies and marches they chant “the police is ours” is a lie and fabrication. The Armenian policeman has always belonged to the authorities of the day. They have always served the country’s presidents and rulers. The police were and are the main support of the former presidents and the current main Armenian patriot. The nail in the current system is the policeman.

My friend Ara Harutyunyan, an American-based scientist and political scientist, tells. “The city where I live officially has a population of 240 thousand and 477 policemen. One policeman for every 500 inhabitants, and that’s in the case of people living in the city being heavily armed. In 25 years, I have not come across a single fight, argument or trouble, even though there are a lot of murders. Today’s Armenia has about 30,000 policemen for 2 million. In other words, one policeman for 60 people, 8 times more armed than the American one. The area of our city is about 1.5 times larger than Yerevan (well, the houses are one-story). During peak hours, there is a flow of 3 rows of cars on each side of the streets (probably they are working in the city from the neighboring regions), in that sense it is not much different from Washington… With the money generated from the taxes of actual Armenian citizens, Nikol supports your friend or neighbor’s militia 8 times more than the norm and the average. 5 times more pay.” And here, the neighboring Georgia stood up by disarming its own police officer. With the first steps, Saakashvili did just that: he deprived the policeman of his leverage. But yes, “ours is different”.

Garegin Vardanyan

By Harut Sassounian,

The highly anticipated meeting between high-ranking European and US officials and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan took place in Brussels last Friday. Armenians excitedly hyped up the meeting long before it was held.

Some Armenians speculated vainly that Armenia would soon join the European Union, while others went as far as predicting Armenia would become a NATO member.

While Armenians are a wonderful people, they have had a major shortcoming during their entire history which is the lack of skill in diplomacy.

Even though Armenians suffered from invasions, occupation, massacres, and even genocide, they never understood that no foreign power would ever come to their rescue. They kept hoping that some country would save them, as if anyone had an obligation to do so. If Armenians never bothered to defend their own land, why would an outsider do such a thing? How can foreigners be more concerned about Armenia’s security and well-being than Armenians themselves?

Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Armenians kept on believing for thousands of years the fairy tale that someone would come to their rescue. More recently, most Armenians believed that should they find themselves in real danger, Russia would save them. Naturally, this is the continuation of a long-standing wishful-thinking. Despite Armenian expectations, when Russia did not protect Artsakh in 2020 from Azerbaijan’s invasion, it was obvious that Russia had no obligation to defend Artsakh since it was not part of the Republic of Armenia. After all, the military alliance called the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) was between Russia, four other ex-Soviet countries, and the Republic of Armenia, not Artsakh. But when Azerbaijan occupied portions of Armenia in 2021 and 2022, many more Armenians began to wake up to the fact that the CSTO would not lift a finger to defend Armenia’s territory.

One would have thought that once Armenians finally realized this fact, they would at long last conclude that no one would defend Armenia. Regrettably, that’s not what happened. They continued their eternal search for saviors. Due to the growing antipathy toward Russia, many Armenians started believing that the West (Europe and the United States) or Iran would now come to their rescue. After a while, when they see that neither Europe nor the US nor Iran are going to save them, they will then fantasize that India and China would defend them. Thus, they would go from country to country looking for a new protector. But Armenians continue to believe that others are obligated to defend them. Every country in the world protects its own national interests, except it seems Armenia. If Armenia had a competent leader, he would have taken emergency steps to arm the country to the teeth to defend itself. There are those who say that Armenia would never be able to protect itself from its more powerful enemies, no matter how much it arms itself. While this is true, the solution is not to leave the borders of Armenia unprotected so anyone can walk in. Armenia’s enemies must realize that if they dare to cross its borders, they would pay a heavy price. They should know that Armenia is not a public park that they can freely go in as they please.

Turning to the Brussels meeting of last Friday, naturally joining the European Union or NATO never came up. Armenia did receive pledges for a few hundred million dollars over the next four years, and a smaller amount from the United States economic aid. Naturally, this is a good thing. Who can argue against receiving a grant, assuming that the money will be wisely spent and not go to the pockets of pro-government contractors?

Money was allocated to Armenia for economic development and various other infrastructures, such as energy. That is also good. We then heard a lot of propaganda about Armenia being a democratic state. This was simply a lip service to keep Prime Minister Pashinyan happy. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken kept harping on promoting democracy in Armenia even though the US government pays no attention to such meaningless principles, except when it suits its own political and military interests. Otherwise, the United States would have imposed sanctions on Azerbaijan and Turkey long ago, due to their multiple violations of the democratic rights of their own population as well as those of Artsakh Armenians.

Armenia does not need political propaganda from the West. Given the continuous attacks by Azerbaijan on Armenia, even while the Brussels conference was taking place, what Armenia needs the most right now are weapons to defend itself from its deadly enemies, Azerbaijan and Turkey. If and when we lose our homeland, it would be meaningless to have improved structures or democratic rule. With neither the East nor West providing a security blanket for Armenia, Pres. Aliyev is reassured that he can do as he pleases with Armenia with no one lifting a finger to protect it, except for handing a fistful of dollars and a lot of useless praise.

“I want to take it back to the 1840s, to the real roots of hegemony, which is Great Britain. There was never a hegemon with such ambition and a curious view of the world. But Britain wanted to run the world in the 19th century and taught America everything it knew. Recently, I read a fascinating book by a historian named J.H.

Gleason, published by Harvard University Press in 1950. It’s a fascinating book called ‘The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain.’ The question is, where did England’s hate of Russia come from? Because it’s actually a little surprising. Britain has HATED Russia since the 1840s and launched the Crimean War that was a war of choice in modern Parliament—a war of choice by Palmerston in the 1850s—because it hated Russia. So, this author tries to understand where this hate came from, because it was the same kind of iterative hate that we have now.

And by the way, we hated the Soviet Union because it was Communist, but we hated Russia afterwards when it wasn’t communist. It doesn’t matter. So, it’s a deeper phenomenon, and he tries to trace where this hatred came from. The fascinating point is, Russia and Britain were on the same side in the Napoleonic Wars from 1812 to 1815, from the Battle of Moscow in Russia to Napoleon’s defeat in Waterloo. They were on the same side, and in fact, for many years, the relations weren’t great, but they were kind of normal. So, this historian reads every snippet of the newspapers, what’s written, of the speeches, to try to understand where the hatred arose.

The key point is there was no reason for it. There was nothing that Russia did. Russia didn’t behave in some perfidious way. It wasn’t Russian evil; it wasn’t that the tsar was somehow off the rails. There wasn’t anything except a self-fulfilling lather built up over time because Russia was a big power and therefore an affront to British hegemony. This is the same reason why the US hates China: not for anything China actually does but because it’s big. It’s the same reason, until today, that the United States and Britain hate Russia—because it’s big.

So, the author concludes that the hate arose around 1840 because it wasn’t instantaneous, and there was no single triggering event. The British got it into their crazy heads that Russia was going to invade India through Central Asia and Afghanistan—one of the most bizarre, phony, wrongheaded ideas imaginable—but they took it quite literally. And they told themselves this: ‘We’re the imperialists. How dare Russia presume to invade India?’ when it had no intention of doing so. So, my point is, it’s possible to have hate to the point of war and now to the point of nuclear annihilation for no fundamental reason. Talk to each other.”