The world is witnessing events of such significance and at such speed that many people experience cognitive dissonance. Many cannot grasp, let alone explain, what is happening. This view is shared by political analyst Stepan Danielyan.
According to him, today there is a struggle to create megamarkets, and the main target of this struggle is the European Union, which some are trying to push out of the game.
“The global economy is in such a state that in order to maintain a stable and developing economy, it is necessary to form macroeconomic unions. According to some estimates, these should be entities with a population of more than one billion people. Until recently, the main competition was between the U.S., the EU, and China. The EU was a fairly successful entity: standards were being implemented, industry was developing, while in the U.S. the opposite processes were taking place. During Democratic administrations, particularly under President Obama, there was an attempt to resolve this by uniting the U.S. and EU economies—ensuring the free movement of people and goods without tariffs or duties. But this model failed: the EU was more attractive, and many countries kept their reserves in euros. Thus, the U.S. realized that the EU posed a threat to its economy,” Danielyan noted.
The political analyst emphasized that the EU is essentially a globalist union built on foundations similar to those of the Soviet Union. It is supranational (otherwise, uniting 27 countries would have been impossible), and for the same reason — non-religious. It has suprastate institutions and promotes gender-related programs. Like the Soviet model, this one implies expansion and the inclusion of as many countries as possible. As a globalist project, the EU sets global tasks — tackling climate change, developing green energy, etc. — tasks that require setting aside narrow national “selfish” interests.
After the failure of the U.S.-EU economic integration project, the new conservative U.S. administration, in order to save its economy, began fighting against globalism as embodied by the EU. The current administration withdrew from the Paris Agreement, opposes green energy, places Christian values at its core, and rejects gender programs. According to the analyst, it is precisely in this context that one should view the meeting in Alaska and the subsequent one in Washington.
“In Alaska, many saw a meeting of two enemies. But in reality, as we can see, these people did not behave like enemies. Moreover, in a certain sense, they are even allies — ready to cooperate and support one another in the fight against globalism. In simple terms, in Alaska two leaders met who are engaged in the same ideological struggle. Whereas in Washington we saw a meeting of a victor with the defeated — the EU appeared as the losing ideological force,” he said.
At that meeting, Trump presented EU leaders with his “mentoring ultimatums” — dictating what and how things should be.
“As a result, the globalist project of the EU suffered defeat. In Washington, a memorandum was signed under which the EU undertook to purchase expensive energy resources from the United States worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and to invest 500–600 billion into the U.S. economy. This memorandum is essentially a contribution from the defeated side,” Danielyan asserted.
According to him, the emerging megamarkets can to some extent be called empires: the U.S. is building its empire, China its own, and Russia its own. “Today everyone agrees that these three must sit at the same table and negotiate the future of the world order,” the political analyst believes.
Unfortunately, Danielyan noted, it seems that Armenia’s leadership does not understand these trends and continues to think in terms of the Cold War and the old world order. Since the EU, as a globalist project, is now in question, Armenia must consider its security guarantees in light of these new realities, he insists.