Nikol Pashinyan: The architect of Armenia’s decline through lies and fabrications
Over the past six years, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has crafted a leadership style marked by the dissemination of lies, misinformation and deflections and the calculated dismantling of Armenia’s sovereignty. Amid his denigration of national identity, diplomatic failures and military blunders, Pashinyan has relentlessly blamed others for the colossal losses suffered by the Armenian nation. A recent example of this behavior was his wholesale dismissal of several government officials, including members of parliament from his party, who are elected by the population. He is running out of pawns to reshuffle from one position to another without rhyme, reason or experience other than loyalty. Much of the population views him as a foreign asset whose policies and rhetoric have destabilized the country.
Pashinyan’s most egregious offense is his disregard for Armenia’s historical and cultural heritage. His controversial statements regarding the Armenian Genocide have shocked the nation and Diaspora alike. In remarks condemned by the Lemkin Institute, Pashinyan appeared to align with Turkish denialist narratives and subtly suggest that Armenians bore responsibility for the Genocide due to their political miscalculations. Such statements undermine Armenia’s long-standing moral and legal claims for justice and embolden Turkey and Azerbaijan in their ongoing aggression against Armenia.
Adding to this insult, Pashinyan has dismissed the importance of historical terminology, equating Western Armenia — lands lost to genocide — with Azerbaijan’s fabricated concept of “Western Azerbaijan.” His comparison legitimizes Azerbaijani territorial claims and undermines Armenia’s sovereignty. Pashinyan appears willing to compromise national interests to appease foreign powers. Pashinyan has also ridiculed key Armenian symbols, including the lion on Armenia’s coat of arms and the national anthem, while suggesting a revision of military and historical terminology to distance the nation from its past. These actions form a troubling pattern of eroding Armenia’s national identity under the guise of modernization.
Under Pashinyan’s leadership, Armenia has suffered devastating military losses, most notably in the 2020 war in Artsakh. Instead of assuming responsibility, Pashinyan has consistently deflected blame onto the military establishment and former governments. His mishandling of military alliances and affairs, including inadequate preparation, has left Armenia vulnerable to further aggression. Pashinyan’s concessions in peace negotiations with Azerbaijan have further compounded Armenia’s losses. His willingness to entertain a one-sided peace treaty and his reluctance to prioritize the return of Armenian prisoners of war have sparked outrage among citizens and opposition leaders alike. These failures illustrate an alarming readiness to capitulate to foreign demands.
By denigrating Armenia’s historical legacy and suppressing dissent, Pashinyan has not only failed to protect the nation but has actively contributed to its decline.
The influx of foreign funding for Armenian NGOs also influences Armenian politics, demonstrating how his administration prioritizes the interests of external entities over national sovereignty. Pashinyan’s dismissive attitude toward the Armenian Diaspora, meanwhile, has created deep rifts within the global Armenian community. In a meeting with diaspora Armenians, he questioned the traditional view of the Diaspora as a crucial pillar of Armenia’s survival. Such remarks alienate a vital source of financial and political support at a time when Armenia faces existential threats. The prime minister’s unprepared speeches and offhand remarks have further strained relations with the Diaspora and undermined his credibility as a leader.
Pashinyan’s administration has employed lies and propaganda to maintain control amid growing dissent. Opposition members of parliament have criticized the government’s false claims that protest movements are funded by foreign entities. Pashinyan’s public statements often contradict Armenia’s national interests and deepen domestic divisions, leaving the country in a perpetual crisis. His tenure as prime minister has been characterized by a relentless pattern of lies and betrayal. His policies have weakened Armenia’s sovereignty, compromised its security and alienated its people. By denigrating Armenia’s historical legacy and suppressing dissent, Pashinyan has not only failed to protect the nation but has actively contributed to its decline.
For Armenia to reclaim its dignity and stability, it must look beyond Pashinyan’s divisive leadership and embrace a vision with clear definitions of statehood and the Armenian nation, accountability, economic and military strength, a national value system and self-determination. The Armenian people deserve a government that prioritizes their interests and safeguards their future.
Ara Nazarian, PhD
Latest posts by Ara Nazarian, PhD (see all)
- Nikol Pashinyan’s hollow message, hypocrisy and isolation - February 26, 2025
- Human rights activist and public figure Avetik Ishkhanyan passes away - February 17, 2025
- Nikol Pashinyan: The architect of Armenia’s decline through lies and fabrications - December 17, 2024
Vote him out next time. But don’t ignore the fact that the balance of power had switched since 1994 .
Pashinyan is the biggest disaster to hit Armenia from within. Doubly tragic is that this walking disaster was reelected in 2021, even after the catastrophic Second Artsakh War, by a small majority of 53%, because the turnout was less than 50%, which enabled him to win. A boycott of the elections, was like handing him the mandate and levers of power on a plate.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he wins the next elections again, if the turnout remains low, which he surely hopes so. However, no one should be surprised if he resorts to vote rigging, which is a possibility that should not be dismissed, because he is more unpopular now than he was even back in 2021.
Looking at the democratic backsliding in neighboring Georgia with the usurpation of all levers of power by the ruling Georgian Dream party and their repression of the opposition, Pashinyan, who has already shown an authoritarian streak, might emulate them and try to go into a dictator mode. This scenario should not be laughed at and dismissed either.
As long as this walking disaster stays in power, it will be nothing but disaster for Armenia. I am sure there are competent and patriotic future leaders out there. Pashinyan is like a product that has been tried and long passed its expiry date.
Excellent article. My sentiments exactly. But there is a saying: “talk is cheap and we need action”. What can we, the diaspora, can do when we can not vote in Armenia’s election? I offered my help during the 44 day war and they turned me down. I am a graduate of Air War College and I know how to conduct a war. The best defense is offense. We should have hit their oil fields which would have eliminated their source of income, so that they could not buy new weapons. Anything that supports the military is a legitimate military target by the Geneva Convention. The idiots in charge purchased SU30 fighter jets with no missals. They could have used those funds to purchase drones instead, which are cheaper and more effective.
The four SU 30 jets without munitions is akin to being given a gun without ammunition. Although it’s obvious Russia wanted Armenia to be weak and helpless for that is the way of the Byzantine duplicity of the Kremlin this ‘clever’ strategy has lost them Syria too it seems that Putin is turning out to be a foolish leader having previously seemed quite a statesman.
‘Disappointing’ is too polite a word to describe Nicole. He’s a walking disaster.
The harsh criticism directed at Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan paints a bleak picture of his leadership. While no leader is perfect, much of this critique overlooks the deeper, systemic issues he inherited and the failures of Armenia’s previous governments. To blame Pashinyan alone for Armenia’s struggles is not only unfair but ignores decades of mismanagement that brought the country to this point.
Let’s Look at the Past
1. A Military Ill-Prepared for Modern Wars
Before Pashinyan, Armenia’s military was neglected for years. Defense spending was riddled with corruption, and modernizing the armed forces was never a priority. This left Armenia vulnerable to Azerbaijan’s aggressive military buildup. The devastating 2020 war didn’t start with Pashinyan—it was the result of years of inaction by previous governments.
2. Corruption and Oligarchy
For decades, Armenia was run by corrupt oligarchs who cared more about consolidating their wealth and power than serving the people. These leaders didn’t invest in the country’s future. Instead, they widened the gap between rich and poor and left public institutions weak and ineffective. It is easy to forget the fact that more than 1 million Armenians abandoned Armenia and settled elsewhere from 1991 to 2018 before Pashinyan’s government inherited a broken system and a perilous demographic situation that takes more than a few years to fix.
3. Foreign Policy Failures
Critics love to blame Pashinyan for Armenia’s diplomatic struggles, but let’s not forget that earlier governments tied Armenia too tightly to Russia, leaving little room for flexibility. They failed to build strong alliances or balance relationships with other countries, leaving Pashinyan to navigate a highly volatile geopolitical landscape with limited options.
4. Diaspora Relations Weren’t Perfect Before Either
Previous governments treated the Armenian Diaspora as a source of cash, not as a true partner in building Armenia’s future. While Pashinyan’s comments about the Diaspora may have sparked controversy, the frustration he tapped into isn’t new.
What Pashinyan Has Tried to Do
1. Breaking the Oligarchic Grip
Pashinyan came to power on the promise of change. He’s worked to dismantle the corrupt networks that dominated Armenia for years. Yes, his decisions, like reshuffling officials, aren’t always perfect, but they’re part of his effort to root out the old system and bring in a new era of governance.
2. Facing the Fallout of War
The 2020 war was devastating, but blaming Pashinyan alone ignores the decades of military unpreparedness he inherited. He was handed a losing hand, and while mistakes may have been made, the situation isn’t solely his doing.
3. Balancing Modernization and Identity
Pashinyan’s approach to Armenia’s identity and history has been polarising, but it’s not about erasing the past. It’s about finding a way to honour Armenia’s history while adapting to the modern world. Some of his statements may have missed the mark, but they reflect an attempt to move forward without being stuck in the past.
4. Reforms and Transparency
Unlike his predecessors, Pashinyan has made strides in fighting corruption and strengthening public institutions. These efforts are critical for Armenia’s long-term success, even if the results aren’t immediately visible.
A Fairer Perspective
Is Pashinyan a perfect leader? Of course not and will never be! But to claim that he alone is responsible for Armenia’s challenges is to ignore the long history of failures that came before him. Many of the issues Armenia faces—weak institutions, military vulnerabilities, and limited diplomatic leverage—didn’t appear overnight.
Armenia’s path forward isn’t about blaming one person or one government. It’s about acknowledging the problems of the past and working together to build a better future. Pashinyan’s leadership, like any leadership, deserves scrutiny, but that scrutiny must be fair and grounded in context. To truly move forward, Armenia needs constructive dialogue, not scapegoating and division. In times of crisis other nations place their deep political divisions aside and unite around the leadership of the country, Armenians need to learn the valuable lessons of unity.
Challenging Counterproductive Criticisms: Why Ara Nazarian’s Anti-Pashinyan Rhetoric Undermines Armenia’s Reality and Interests
Ara Nazarian’s critique of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is fervent but neglects the broader geopolitical pressures, shifting alliances, and existential challenges faced by a small, vulnerable state bordered by hostile, well-armed neighbors. While it is valid to question Pashinyan’s policies, Nazarian’s arguments offer an incomplete understanding of Armenia’s situation and, at times, echo Russian propaganda designed to impede Yerevan’s efforts to seek more reliable partnerships.
Nazarian’s stance inadvertently aids Russia’s efforts to sow discord within Armenia rather than fostering the pragmatic approach the nation needs to survive. Moscow’s reliability as an ally has declined, as evidenced by its inaction during the 2020 war, when Azerbaijan – supported by Turkey – made significant gains. Since then, the Kremlin has deepened ties with Baku at Armenia’s expense. By demonizing Pashinyan and his administration, Nazarian’s narrative aligns with the Kremlin’s playbook – depicting any Armenian leader aiming to expand alliances beyond Russia as treacherous. This posture weakens Armenia from within, discouraging reforms, investments, and the defense partnerships essential for safeguarding its sovereignty.
Although Nazarian criticizes the shift away from Moscow, he fails to acknowledge Russia’s ineffective intervention during the 2020 war or its growing entente with Azerbaijan. Under Pashinyan, Armenia is cultivating relations with France, India, and the United States to establish a more dependable security framework – precisely the sort of realignment that Russian propaganda seeks to thwart.
Nazarian accuses Pashinyan of compromising sovereignty, but he overlooks the harsh reality necessitating a carefully calibrated policy. Facing two dictatorships – Azerbaijan under Ilham Aliyev and Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan – Armenia cannot sustain purely defiant rhetoric without sufficient military backing. Negotiations and peace-seeking are strategic tools to prevent these neighbors from finding easy excuses for renewed aggression – especially while Armenia is rebuilding its defense capacity.
Since 2020, Pashinyan’s administration has enacted tangible reforms to modernize the armed forces, including procuring weaponry from India and Western nations. Although these measures may not match Azerbaijan’s capabilities overnight, they are critical for Armenia’s long-term security.
Nazarian also places sole blame on Pashinyan for Armenia’s military and institutional deficiencies, overlooking decades of entrenched corruption, stagnation, and outdated strategies preceding his administration. The 2020 war revealed systemic vulnerabilities – insufficient defense structures, overreliance on single-source arms deals, and bureaucratic corruption. Holding Pashinyan entirely responsible fails to account for earlier governments’ legacy. In response, the current administration is diversifying arms suppliers, seeking alliances outside Russia’s constrained support, and strengthening governance standards – steps that address historical dysfunction rather than continue it.
Nazarian criticizes Pashinyan’s economic strategy and accuses him of alienating the diaspora. However, the government has indeed made headway in diversifying Armenia’s economy and seeking diaspora investment. Reducing reliance on Russian markets is vital for avoiding economic coercion and ensuring resilience. This includes exploring new trading partners, attracting Western investment, and embracing more transparent business practices. Although some diaspora members feel alienated – particularly those endorsing narratives echoing Russian propaganda – Pashinyan’s government actively seeks diaspora involvement through development initiatives, humanitarian programs, and strategic investments. Depicting all diaspora relations as fractured oversimplifies ongoing collaborations.
By focusing on vilifying Pashinyan, Nazarian deflects attention from the clear danger posed by Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Russia’s destabilizing role. This antagonistic approach sidesteps the urgent task of uniting Armenians – both domestic and abroad – to tackle dire security threats. Persistent verbal attacks against Pashinyan also obscure Ilham Aliyev’s record of aggression, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing. More critical still, strengthening national unity around shared strategic objectives is far more pressing than stoking internal discord or advancing Kremlin-friendly narratives.
Armenia’s deepening ties with France and the United States promise potential military training, economic collaboration, and diplomatic support – vital elements in offsetting Azerbaijan’s advantages. Dismissing these alliances serves only to undermine Armenia’s pursuit of self-preservation.