The looming Pashinyan peace
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has made yet another colossal misstep, setting the Armenian nation back decades in its pursuit of justice. True to form, his missteps continue to align with Turkish-Azeri interests, often to the detriment of Armenian interests. In a March 11 interview with Turkish media representatives—whom he invited to Armenia, paid for by Armenian taxpayers—Pashinyan suggested his willingness to reconsider the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Pashinyan’s statements were made within the context of Armenian-Turkish normalization, prioritizing opening borders and trade over justice and historical accountability.
This is no coincidence, as Armenia and Azerbaijan have announced that they have reached a “peace” agreement. This will likely mean that Azerbaijan will be connected to Turkey through Armenia, with catastrophic consequences for Armenia’s historical truth, national dignity and security.
During the interview, Pashinyan reiterated his stance that international recognition of the Armenian Genocide is not a priority for his administration. This reckless shift not only betrays the memory of 1.5 million martyrs but also emboldens Turkey and Azerbaijan—countries that have consistently denied the genocide and pose existential threats to Armenia. Pashinyan’s apparent eagerness to align with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, potentially at the cost of severing ties with Russia, suggests a desperate gamble to retain power—at an unforgivable price.
On January 24, during a meeting with the Armenian community in Switzerland, Pashinyan spoke of the need to “revisit” the history of the Armenian Genocide. This statement ignited a firestorm of outrage. Leading Armenian organizations and institutions worldwide— including Catholicos Aram I of the Great House of Cilicia, the ARF Bureau and ARF Supreme Body of Armenia, the ANCA, the Council of Armenian Unions of Switzerland (CAAS)—as well as the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention have condemned his remarks in the strongest terms.
Dr. Hayk Demoyan, former director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute, warned that Pashinyan is attempting to appease Turkey and Azerbaijan by downplaying the historical trauma of the Armenian people. While Pashinyan later clarified his statements by reaffirming the indisputable fact of the Armenian Genocide, the damage had already been done.
This shameful betrayal not only dishonors the victims of the genocide but also sets a dangerous precedent for future atrocities. Armenia’s leaders shield the perpetrators from accountability by weakening the demand for recognition and justice in the misguided hope of receiving diplomatic favors. Such statements could unravel decades of progress, embolden revisionist narratives and endanger Armenia’s future if left unchecked.
This brings us to Pashinyan’s plans for a “real armenia” in the near future. On February 27, he introduced an ideological shift to redefine Armenia’s national identity, moving away from the concept of “historical Armenia”—which includes claims of lost Armenian lands—towards a modern “real armenia,” limited to the internationally recognized Republic of Armenia. His address outlined 14 key points, emphasizing that patriotism should serve the legal obligations and interests of the state rather than historical claims.
Pashinyan’s push for constitutional changes, particularly the removal of the preamble referencing Armenia’s 1990 Declaration of Independence—which alludes to the unification of Armenia and Artsakh—has sparked intense controversy. While this revision is not yet official, many believe it is inevitable amid ongoing negotiations with Azerbaijan. Since 2023, Baku has demanded its removal as a condition for a peace agreement. Passing constitutional amendments requires a referendum with sufficient voter turnout.
Pashinyan argues that the defeat in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War presents an opportunity to transition from “residual practices of a stateless nation” to a state-building people. Critics, however, believe this is an attempt to absolve himself of responsibility for the war’s disastrous outcome and secure re-election in 2026. The EU and U.S. support his vision, believing it can usher in peace and help Armenia distance itself from Russian influence. While this is a key interest for the West, it is unclear whether this is in Armenia’s interests.
Pashinyan’s vision for Armenia is a radical departure from the nation’s historical identity, ancestral legacy and centuries-long struggle for justice. Armenians have fought to preserve and assert their historical and cultural heritage for generations, particularly in Western Armenia, Nakhichevan and Artsakh. By rebranding national identity under the guise of a “real armenia,” Pashinyan erases this history and legitimizes the historical narratives of Armenia’s adversaries.
This symbolic shift lays the groundwork for further concessions. Pashinyan would give Azerbaijan and Turkey a diplomatic victory by removing the constitutional preamble referencing historical Armenian lands. Concessions do not end with a single compromise; history has demonstrated that each step back emboldens expansionist ambitions. Azerbaijan and Turkey will likely push further, demanding control over strategic regions such as Syunik (Zangezur) and Lake Sevan. This approach strips Armenia of its ability to negotiate from a position of strength, surrendering control of its future to the nations seeking its eradication.
Perhaps more dangerously, this ideological overhaul threatens to demoralize and fragment the Armenian people. A nation’s strength lies in its unity, and by redefining Armenia’s identity to exclude its struggles and historical suffering, Pashinyan weakens the foundation of Armenian resilience. The erasure of territorial claims could serve as the first step in eliminating the Armenian Genocide from international discourse, as Genocide recognition is tied to the continued assertion of historical rights. If Armenia is detached from its past, it risks becoming a fractured and submissive state without the national spirit to stand against future threats.
Pashinyan claims these concessions will bring security and peace, but history has shown otherwise. Azerbaijan has consistently exploited Armenia’s willingness to compromise as an opportunity to prepare for future conflicts. If Armenia formally renounced its territorial claims, it would lose any leverage in peace negotiations, leaving Azerbaijan free to escalate its demands without fear of resistance. This endangers Armenia’s current borders and leaves the country vulnerable to an existential crisis.
Pashinyan’s reckless effort to distance Armenia from Russia without securing an alternative security arrangement is compounding these risks. Russia has historically provided military support, however unreliable at times, and its departure would create a power vacuum. While Pashinyan seeks closer ties with the West, it is unlikely that the European Union and United States will offer concrete security guarantees, especially when they have vested interests in regional stability rather than Armenia’s survival. Armenia could be isolated and exposed to an Azerbaijani-Turkish military alliance without a dependable defense partner.
At the heart of this transformation lies Pashinyan’s political survival. His push for a new constitution is not merely about reform—it is a calculated strategy to secure his grip on power ahead of the 2026 elections. By redefining national identity, he removes one of the most potent arguments against him: that he has betrayed Armenia through military defeat and territorial concessions. If successful, he could further centralize power, silencing opposition voices who advocate for national sovereignty and historical justice. In doing so, he is not only dismantling Armenia’s national character but also undermining democracy itself, using “democratic reform” as a façade for emerging autocratic rule.
What Pashinyan presents as a step toward peace and modernization is, in reality, a path toward national capitulation. His ideological overhaul does not bring security; it invites further aggression. It does not strengthen Armenia; it weakens its unity. It does not ensure Armenia’s future; it endangers its existence. If left unchallenged, this transformation will not just reshape Armenia—it will erase it.
Should things continue as they do, what will be next? In 2018, many failed to see the impending catastrophe. The nation paid with thousands of lives, the loss of Artsakh and irreversible devastation. Now, history is repeating itself.
A potential plan: a pre-arranged betrayal
Under the patronage of international forces, a meticulously planned disaster could unfold for the Armenian nation, orchestrated by the Erdogan-Aliyev-Pashinyan tandem. Azerbaijan has already attacked Armenia’s borders—from Kirants to Meghri—and occupied its territory. Meanwhile, Pashinyan has systematically dismantled Armenia’s defensive positions at Azerbaijan’s demand. Within a short few days, Azerbaijan’s forces could completely occupy Armenia, advancing to the Sevan coast to seize control of its water resources while demilitarizing all remaining Armenian defenses.
Are we still deceived into thinking this is only about the “Zangezur Corridor”? It will be too late when Azerbaijani forces march into Yerevan, Gyumri and Gavar. After a rapid war, Armenia would be forced into a new and final capitulation. Pashinyan and his inner circle would ensure no organized resistance, just as they did in Artsakh.
Iran will likely limit itself to statements in this scenario, and Russia will not intervene. The West will do nothing meaningful. U.S. President Donald Trump will claim credit for “stopping hostilities” after the conquest, while the EU will watch silently. Azerbaijan will frame the war as a necessary “anti-fascist” operation and claim that Armenia was preparing for revenge with weapons from France and India.
In the unfortunate scenario that Armenia concedes under Azeri pressure amid the absence of real allies, there will be a significant shift in Armenia’s national sovereignty and security outlook. In this scenario, Armenia could be in a position of full compliance with new territorial and military concessions, with Azerbaijan holding control over key transit corridors in Syunik and sovereignty over eastern provinces. Additionally, Armenia’s defense capabilities could be significantly reduced, with its national armed forces replaced by a limited internal security force and the potential deployment of Azerbaijani troops within Armenia.
Another point of concern is the potential for Azerbaijan to request the transfer of Armenian veterans and soldiers from previous conflicts. Furthermore, constitutional revisions could introduce Azerbaijani as a second official language and permit external control over Armenia’s strategic natural resources. Political stability will be under direct threat in the event of such sweeping changes, which will have a detrimental impact on Armenia’s future.
Looking back, Vahan Teryan’s words resonate as strongly today as they did in 1914.
Ի՞նչ է կամենում նա “Հայաստան” ասելով։ Ի՞նչ է նշանակում այդ բառը նրա շրթունքներում:
Որպիսի՞ Հայաստան էք ուզում կառուցանել դուք, որ չէք ուզում ճանաչել այդ հոգեղէն Հայաստանը: Ի՞նչ էք որոնում դուք Հայաստանում, եթէ արհամարհում էք այն, ինչ հոգին եւ սիրտն է Նրա։
Դուք որ ինքնակոչ հիւրեր էք այսօրուայ արիւնալի հանդէսում, միթէ չէ՞ք զգում ձեր դրութեան տարօրինակութիւնը, անյարմարութիւնը: Դուք, որ ժառանգ էք դարձել մեր հայրենիքի եւ երբեք չէք գնահատել նրա հոգեղէն աւանդը:
Անվերջ չարչարանքի եւ գերագոյն մի բաղձանքի, անվերջ զրկանքների եւ վսեմ մի հաւատի պայծառ պատկեր չէ՞ միթէ մեր հոգեւոր հայրենիքի ասպետ–զաւակների կեանքը։
Եթէ յիրաւի այսօր պարզուած է հայութեան սիրտը դէպի ապագան, եթէ յիրաւի հաւատում է նա իր ապագային, ապա իր հայացքը ոչ միայն դէպի Վան կամ Էրզրում պիտի ուղղէ, այլ ներսը, իր հոգու խորքը, տեսնելու համար թէ կա՞յ արդեօք իր մէջ այն ամէնը, որ կենդանութիւն է ներչնչում մեր նիւթական հայրենիքին, այդ Վան եւ Մուշ եւ Էրզրումին:
…Ես հաւատում եմ կը լինի ե՛ւ հոգեւոր Հայաստանը, կենդանի կը լինի մեր հայրենիքը, ուրեմն կենդանի կը լինի եւ այն Հայաստանը, որի համար մեր ժողովուրդը թափում է այսօր իր արիւնը:
— Տէրեան Վահան, Հոգեւոր Հայաստան, Մշակ օրաթերթ, Թիֆլիս, թիւ 293, 294, 295, 296, 1914 դետկեմբերի 26, 27, 28, 30
What does he mean by “Armenia”? What does that word signify on his lips?
What kind of Armenia do you want to build, when you refuse to recognize that spiritual Armenia? What are you looking for in Armenia, when you disdain that which is its soul and heart?
You, who are self-appointed guests at today’s bloody event, do you not feel the strangeness and incongruity of your situation? You, who have inherited our homeland and have never appreciated its spiritual legacy.
Isn’t the life of our spiritual homeland’s knight-children—with endless suffering and a supreme longing, with endless deprivation and a sublime faith—a vivid image?
If today, the heart of the Armenian nation is truly directed towards the future, if it truly believes in its future, then its gaze should not only be turned towards Van or Erzurum, but inward, to the depths of its soul, to see whether it holds within itself all that breathes life into our material homeland, to Van, Mush and Erzurum.
…I believe that the spiritual Armenia will live on, our homeland will remain alive and thus, the Armenia for which our people shed their blood today will also remain alive.
— Vahan Teryan, Spiritual Armenia, Mshak daily newspaper, Tbilisi, Issues 293, 294, 295 and 296 (December 26, 27, 28 and 30, 1914)
Ara Nazarian, PhD
Latest posts by Ara Nazarian, PhD (see all)
- The looming Pashinyan peace - March 19, 2025
- Nikol Pashinyan’s hollow message, hypocrisy and isolation - February 26, 2025
- Human rights activist and public figure Avetik Ishkhanyan passes away - February 17, 2025
The traitor Pashinyan is paving the way for Armenia’s national and spiritual emasculation and territorial mutilation. He could very well fullfil all of Azerbaijan’s punitive maximalist demands and cede southern Armenia as well, in his stupefying belief that appeasing an aggressive expansionist arch-enemy and dictatorship like Azerbaijan might work! This would mean the end of Armenia’s sovereignty and viability as an independent state. That man came to power to ruin Armenia. He will cling to power, even if it means sacrificing Armenia and become a puppet of Azerbaijan and Turkey. He has gone down as the biggest traitor in Armenian history. What Vidkun Quisling is to Norway and Pierre Laval is to France, Nikol Pashinyan is to Armenia.
What is even more appalling, is the silence and thus the acquiescence of the majority of the Armenian people to the spiritual emasculation of the Armenian nation and the mutilation of the Armenian homeland, and that they re-elected Pashinyan, after the disastrous Second Artsakh War, which eventually resulted in the destruction of Artsakh.
The threshold among most of the people in Armenia, to all this treason and to the peril Armenia is in, must be very low. Otherwise, a traitor and saboteur like Pashinyan could not have been re-elected and gotten away with his appeasement of the Turkic arch-enemies and sabotage of Armenia.
It should be noted that recognition of the Armenian genocide has never been part of the Armenian state foreign policy since May 28, 1918 for reasons, I image concerned Armenians understand.
Vaհe H Apelian
Armenia should finally make peace with its neighbours like civilized European clnationsv did after WWII. Mothers, fathers, wives, brothers, sisters have died over the death of their loved ones..Enough is enough. We don’t want to spill more blood. We want peace ✌️. That’s all. Good luck Mr. Pashinyan.
Armenia should finally make peace with its neighbours like civilized European countries did after WWII. Mothers, fathers, wives, brothers, sisters have cried and suffered over the death of their loved ones..Enough is enough. We don’t want to spill more blood. We want peace ✌️. That’s all. Good luck Mr. Pashinyan.