Aliyev the wolf vs. Pashinyan the lamb: It is clear who will devour whom

There seems to be no end to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s concessions to Azerbaijan’s demands. The only end will be the end of Armenia.

Last week, when Pres. Ilham Aliyev once again issued threats against Armenia, Pashinyan responded with further concessions. It feels like Aliyev is ruling Armenia from Baku.

Aliyev gave a lengthy press conference to Azerbaijani media on January 7, 2025, during which he made arrogant statements about Armenia using an extremely demeaning tone. Here are excerpts from his remarks:

  • Armenia returned the four villages in the Tavush region to Azerbaijan “as a result of a monologue rather than a dialogue.” Armenia returned these villages “under coercion.”
  • “Armenia cannot compete with us in the arms race.”
  • “The independent Armenian state is, in fact, a fascist state… Therefore, fascism must be eradicated. Either the Armenian leadership will destroy it or we will.”
  • “Armenia must immediately cease arming itself. France and other countries that supply weapons to Armenia must terminate and cancel these contracts. The weapons that have already been delivered to Armenia must be returned.”
  • “The dissolution of the Minsk Group and the amendment of the constitution; without these, a peace treaty is impossible.”
  • “The Zangezur corridor must and will be opened.”
  • “During [Pres. Donald Trump’s] first term, there was no issue in U.S.-Azerbaijan relations. On the contrary, the relations were very positive, and we were able to make progress in many areas. The main mistake of the Biden administration regarding Azerbaijan was that they sacrificed U.S.-Azerbaijan relations for U.S.-Armenia relations.”
  • “Considering that the current territory of Armenia essentially includes the historical lands that were predominantly inhabited by Azerbaijanis, today we assert that 300,000 Western Azerbaijanis should return to those regions. However, the total number of those who have been displaced from that region, and who are now living in various parts of Azerbaijan, along with their descendants, is several times greater than 300,000.”

After members of the Armenian media complained about Pashinyan’s eerie silence about Aliyev’s threatening comments, he finally agreed to answer a few questions from Armenpress on January 8.

Pashinyan said that by making aggressive statements about Armenia, Aliyev expected a similar aggressive response from Armenia “to form the basis for a new escalation in the region. We will not take that path and we will remain committed to the strategy of peace.” Pashinyan keeps begging for peace and ignoring Aliyev’s multiple rejections. Aliyev prefers a piece of Armenia rather than a piece of paper, which he will ignore even if he signs it. In this short interview, Pashinyan repeated the word peace 11 times.

When asked for his reply to Aliyev’s accusation that Armenia is “a fascist state,” Pashinyan sheepishly agreed that there is such a perception about Armenia in Azerbaijan, just as there is a similar perception about Azerbaijan in Armenia.

Regarding Aliyev’s persistent demands for an Azeri corridor through Armenia, Pashinyan once again failed to demand that, as stated in the 2020 agreement, Azerbaijan allow reciprocal access for Armenia through Azerbaijan.

In responding to a question about Aliyev referring to the Republic of Armenia as “Western Azerbaijan,” Pashinyan simply said: Aliyev “has said nothing new about this topic for me to have a new reaction.”

Regarding Aliyev’s complaints about Armenia acquiring arms, Pashinyan stated: “No one can dispute the right of the Republic of Armenia to have a defensible army.” He then added: “We do not have an objective of militarily returning more than 200 square kilometers of occupied territories of the Republic of Armenia.”

In response to Azeri accusations of Armenia violating the ceasefire, Pashinyan repeated his proposal “to create a joint mechanism to investigate each report about ceasefire violations and draw joint conclusions.”

On January 9, Pashinyan posted on his Facebook page a lengthy statement, comprised of 17 points, complying with Aliyev’s demands for concessions.

He described “Western Azerbaijan” as consisting of several towns located in the Western part of Azerbaijan, including parts of Artsakh. He falsely named cities in the Republic of Armenia as being “Western Armenia,” adding facetiously, “There is no Western Armenia beyond this and cannot be.”

He then detailed the components of “establishing lasting stability and peace in the region”:

  • “Mutually abandon escalatory narratives.”
  • “Continue the delimitation process.”
  • “Sign a peace treaty, which is 90% ready.”
  • “Implement the ‘Crossroads of Peace’ project.”
  • “Introduce a joint mechanism for investigating ceasefire violations.”
  • “Fully resolve the issue of detained persons.”
  • “Work in full intensity to resolve the issue of determining the fate of missing persons.” 
  • “Withdraw the claims against each other, including, but not limited to, claims in international courts.”
  • “Work on the complete and effective implementation of the provisions of the peace treaty.”
  • “Form a mechanism for negotiating around mutual arms control, quota allocation and restrictions of use of armaments.”
  • “Discuss the issues pertaining to refugees from the two countries by forming a joint professional, expert commission after the establishment of peace.”
  • “Dissolve the OSCE Minsk Group.”

Some of these points are a rehash of Pashinyan’s previous proposals, which Aliyev has not accepted. However, several are against Armenia’s interests, particularly the withdrawal of mutual lawsuits in international courts and the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group. Both of these demands were dictated by Aliyev.

Harut Sassounian

Harut Sassounian

California Courier Editor
Harut Sassounian is the publisher of The California Courier, a weekly newspaper based in Glendale, Calif. He is the president of the Armenia Artsakh Fund, a non-profit organization that has donated to Armenia and Artsakh one billion dollars of humanitarian aid, mostly medicines, since 1989 (including its predecessor, the United Armenian Fund). He has been decorated by the presidents of Armenia and Artsakh and the heads of the Armenian Apostolic and Catholic churches. He is also the recipient of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.

5 Comments

  1. The OSCE Minsk group is in jeopardy due to the collapse of relationships between Russia on one side and France and USA on the other something which ought to be acknowledged and not ignored. Also as it was to resolve the dispute over Arktash now clearly resolved in Azerbaijan favour which had the legal advantage from it being part of Azeri SSR, it as a forum for mediation is dubious. Clearly some Kazar behaviour from Azerbaijan (like Israel) in seeking a helpless Armenia with some form of cathaginian peace. Unless there is some mutual armlements restrictions as part of a peace agreement, Armenia must resist any bamboozling and must be clear to supporters France USA Greece and India that if they can’t support Armenia then they will lose Armenia. Azerbaijan is actively building its military beyond replenishment of expended munitions and updating. As for the villages that had been part of Azeri SSR within Azerbaijan it was part of the 2020 agreement that they would be returned to Azerbaijan that needless to say a price of defeat. With Russian withdrawal from Armenia as part of that country’s declining position the provision for their management of any corridor through Armenia is doubtful and will be opposed by NATO countries save (Altaic) outcasts Turkey and Hungary. The UN is evermore discredited and dysfunctional and thus the chance of them supervising is low. Donald Trump is likely to be favourable to Azerbaijan as that’s inline with his pro Israel (pro Azerbaijan) perspective. Western Armenia as in lands now part of Turkey is historical Armenia but has no current legal status just like lands formerly part of other countries or indeed countries which no longer exist. Thus in the legal sense parts of the west of Armenia are western Armenia but not in the customary sense to most Armenians.

  2. Only solution to this issue, is cooperation of these both neighbor countries without mediators for mutual benefit and peace.

  3. Only solution to this issue, is cooperation of these both neighbor countries without mediators for mutual benefit and for sustainable peace.

  4. Harut Sassounian’s article dismisses Prime Minister Pashinyan as incompetent for negotiating with Azerbaijan, yet it overlooks the stark realities of Armenia’s predicament. Flanked by two aggressive neighbors – Azerbaijan and Turkey – Armenia must contend with long-standing authoritarian regimes that have repeatedly used force to advance their agendas, as evidenced by the 2020 war and subsequent escalations. A simplistic “no-concessions” stance may resonate emotionally, but it fails to account for Armenia’s overwhelming power disparity and limited regional alliances.

    Turkey, a robust NATO member with its own defense industry, exerts significant sway over Western security frameworks while aiding Azerbaijan militarily. Azerbaijan, benefiting from oil revenues and arms acquired from Turkey, Russia, and Israel, wields superior resources. Armenia, by contrast, is a relatively small nation with modest means, facing an existential risk should a purely defiant posture provoke a catastrophic war it cannot sustain.

    Sassounian posits that Pashinyan’s repeated calls for “peace” illustrate his incompetence or betrayal. Yet diplomacy under duress does not automatically amount to surrender. In realpolitik, smaller or weaker states frequently resort to tactical concessions to avert full-scale conflict, buy time to strengthen their positions, and demonstrate good faith to the international community. By signaling readiness to negotiate – even amid aggression – Armenia can frame itself as the rational actor; should Azerbaijan launch hostilities, Armenia’s track record of seeking dialogue may prompt greater international backing. Conversely, any aggressive Armenian rhetoric could give Aliyev a pretext for renewed warfare, making Pashinyan’s restraint, however frustrating to some, a strategic way to undercut Baku’s claims of provocation.

    Contrary to Sassounian’s portrayal, Pashinyan’s government pursues a multi-pronged strategy rather than simply pleading for peace. Closer Ties with France and the United States with EU monitoring and defense cooperation raise the cost to Azerbaijan of future aggression. Diversifying Defense Sources by Collaborating with India – an emerging global power with its own arms industry – gradually improves Armenia’s military deterrence. Economic and Domestic Reforms for a healthier economy and stronger governance structures enhance Armenia’s resilience under external pressure and allow for rebuilding its military capacity.

    These moves are neither instant solutions nor empty rhetoric; they reflect a calculated effort to break from reliance on any single patron – particularly Russia, whose inconsistent support has often left Armenia vulnerable – and to secure a more sustainable future.

    Labeling Pashinyan a defenseless lamb ignores the realpolitik constraints on Armenia’s survival. Facing two powerful, expansionist neighbors, Armenia must carefully weigh each statement and policy to avoid unified or sequential attacks by Azerbaijan and Turkey. Lofty talk without matching capacity can backfire. By emphasizing peace and incremental concessions, Yerevan aims to prevent full-scale warfare while gradually reinforcing its alliances. Smaller compromises now may prevent a broader disaster, buying time for Armenia to modernize its military and develop more robust partnerships.

    Sassounian’s critique of Prime Minister Pashinyan as weak or ineffectual disregards Armenia’s harsh geopolitical realities and the delicate balancing act required of a small state threatened by larger, heavily armed dictatorships. Words alone do not guarantee peace; however, words backed by diplomatic engagement and military improvements can deliver strategic gains. Rather than constituting capitulation, Pashinyan’s approach – combining negotiations, defense partnerships, and economic reforms – represents a pragmatic endeavor to preserve Armenia’s sovereignty. While Sassounian’s points may stir public frustration, they neglect the deep power imbalances Armenia contends with and the rationale behind Pashinyan’s measured blend of diplomacy and rearmament.

  5. @ Berge
    Absolutely correct. There is a lot of back seat driver posturing and comfort from distance especially in diaspora. It’s all too easy to decry from the comfort of California. Although in their case where neighbourhoods have been devastated by recent fires people might think how they could should have planned better for such eventualities. Yet where hot dry winds are rare it’s easy to forget the local reality. A sad reality which is slowly being debunked is that Armenia had fallen behind in the arms race with Azerbaijan and it’s previous near monopoly tie in with Russia limited what weapons it could procure from NATO countries if Armenia had the advantage like in 1994 then there would be little reason to question it but 2020 showed this was clearly not the case and a horrible reality check that Armenia had been riding on the glory from 1994 and Russia had been cavorting with its arch enemy Azerbaijan. Thus how badly it had fallen behind until then conjectures would be brutally revealed in 2020 . The conflict and it’s immediate aftermath the popular myth that Russia out of annoyance let Armenia lose to teach them a lesson but graciously intervened to secure what was left of Arktash . Russia subsequent invasion of Ukraine and crippling losses along with getting into conflict with another country massively backed by foreign powers essential to Ukraine cause whom Russia is unwilling unable to confront effectively allowing Ukraine a vast safe haven. This asks serious questions about the wisdom and competence of Russia hitherto Armenia patron to have gotten itself into such a situation. Along with showing the limitations of Russian military equipment and practices. Although it’s demonstrated that western equipment can be broken in battle by Russia. Also the subsequent blockade which Russia made no effort to relieve and the subsequent conquest of Arktash indeed where Russia simply supervised the exodus and perhaps prevented a massacre and the detention of the leadership who unlike Pashinyan were staunchly pro Russia has shown their limitations publicly . Thus recent events such as Syria where Assad collapsed in 11 days perhaps debunks the Pashinyan threw it in Arktash and Russia wouldn’t let that happen to an ally notion except declining the awful constitution Russia suggested , Assad was staunchly loyal and even recognised Russian annexations of Ukraine something Even the pre Pashinyan government baulked at with Crimea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.