Quick Read
– Azerbaijani gasoline increasingly used in Armenia.
– Citizens rationalize fuel choices despite political tensions.
– Historical parallels drawn with occupation regimes.
– Government seems to manipulate public sentiments.
– Fuel as a tool for reshaping moral stances.
In recent months, the phenomenon of using Azerbaijani gasoline in Armenia has sparked significant debate and introspection among citizens. The decision to fill up with fuel supplied by a neighboring country, often associated with historical animosities and conflict, poses a moral conundrum for many. Arman Vardanian, in a recent Facebook post, eloquently captures this dilemma, suggesting that the state is attempting to buy loyalty through convenient and cheaper gasoline. For the first time in Armenia’s history, it seems, the government is actively trying to “purchase” its citizens’ allegiance through fuel.
This audacious strategy brings to mind the notion of a new “faith” promoted by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s administration—a faith that somehow justifies compromising values and principles for a few cents saved at the pump. Fuel, after all, is not holy water; it doesn’t cleanse the soul or elevate one’s spirit. Yet, in an ironic twist, many have found themselves rationalizing the use of Azerbaijani gasoline with a multitude of justifications. “It’s only a bit of fuel,” they say. “Everyone is doing it.” “I don’t engage in politics.” And perhaps most hauntingly, they assure themselves, “We aren’t eternal enemies; trade is essential.”
Historically, this tactic resembles mechanisms used in occupational regimes, rather than conventional marketing strategies. During Nazi occupation in Europe, for instance, rations of food and fuel were often exchanged for cooperation. Similarly, the Soviet Union granted social benefits in the Baltic states to secure loyalty and compliance. However, unlike those times, there is an unsettling attempt to frame this situation as a “free market choice” or a “citizen’s decision.”
Changing one’s moral view on a specific adversary or set of values isn’t just a personal choice; it is a societal shift—one that echoes the term “social hunger management,” where the need for survival begins to override deeply ingrained principles. Through the lens of economic necessity, the line between collaboration and survival blurs, creating a form of complicity in the very systems that have historically oppressed.
The discussion around gasoline isn’t merely about cost; it compels us to examine broader socio-political dynamics. As citizens grapple with their choices at the pump, their decisions reflect larger existential questions about identity, loyalty, and survival in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.
In this light, the situation becomes a critical examination of how external pressures can lead individuals to negotiate their values for convenience. As Armenia navigates its complex relationship with Azerbaijan, the ramifications of these choices will likely echo through generations, challenging how loyalty and identity are defined in a nation still grappling with its past.
Citations: Arman Vardanian