YEREVAN—On Monday, February 17, 2025, Robert Kocharyan, the second President of the Republic of Armenia and founder of the opposition “Armenia” Alliance, held a press conference after a nearly two-and-a-half year hiatus.
Over four hours, Kocharyan addressed more than a dozen questions on a range of issues, including Armenia’s relations with Russia, recent diplomatic decisions, the future of Nagorno-Karabakh/Artsakh and the political climate under Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s leadership.
Kocharyan began by sharply criticizing the current government, particularly its foreign policy. He argued that Armenia’s leadership fails to grasp the complexities of global geopolitics, making decisions that put the country’s sovereignty at risk. Since the 2020 war in Artsakh, Kocharyan said Prime Minister Pashinyan has transformed from a “non-military Rambo” to a “geopolitical Gikor,” highlighting a serious lack of leadership and mismanagement of Armenia’s foreign relations.
Kocharyan then outlined Armenia’s handling of the Artsakh issue, stating that the handover to Azerbaijan occurred in two distinct phases. In the first phase (2018 to 2020), he claimed Pashinyan’s administration disregarded international mediators’ advice and made unilateral decisions that weakened Armenia’s negotiating position. He pointed specifically to Pashinyan’s 2019 dismissal of the OSCE Minsk Group’s proposals, insisting instead that negotiations begin “from zero.” Kocharyan argued this move marked the beginning of Armenia’s growing diplomatic isolation, adding, “Pashinyan’s statement that ‘Artsakh is Armenia, period,’ was a direct call for war.”
The second phase (2020 to 2023), saw further concessions to Azerbaijan, according to Kocharyan. He argued that Armenia’s growing distance from Russia, amid Moscow’s military setbacks in Ukraine, led to a shift in its foreign policy. He specifically criticized Pashinyan’s recognition of Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan, calling it a diplomatic misstep at a time when Russia was struggling to maintain its regional influence.
Kocharyan suggested that Armenia’s strained relationship with Russia had serious consequences in 2023, making Moscow unlikely to intervene against Azerbaijan’s takeover of Artsakh. “Many in our country are upset, asking why Russia did not honor its commitments. Let’s try to look at this through Russia’s eyes. What you see is: you could stop what’s happening in Karabakh only by military intervention—there was no other option,” Kocharyan said.
“But military intervention for whom? For an Armenia that deceived you, sided with your enemies at a critical moment? Would any of you get in a fight for a friend who betrayed you? I don’t think so,” he continued. However, Kocharyan acknowledged that Russia could have intervened more forcefully to prevent the loss of Artsakh but chose not to, viewing Armenia as an unreliable ally.
The former president also expressed concern over the growing momentum surrounding the Zangezur Corridor, a proposed land route connecting Azerbaijan’s mainland to its exclave of Nakhichevan through Armenian territory. “This topic is being raised again and some people in the Armenian government are pushing for concessions that aren’t in the national interest,” he warned, cautioning that such a move could result in significant territorial losses without a clear national consensus.
Addressing long-standing accusations that he once considered ceding Armenia’s southern Meghri region to Azerbaijan in exchange for Artsakh’s recognition, Kocharyan acknowledged that the idea was discussed in 1999 but insisted that it was never pursued. This claim, first raised in 2008, resurfaced in January 2025 following the declassification of U.S. State Department documents, suggesting he and then Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev considered such an exchange. Kocharyan maintained that Armenia ultimately rejected the deal, recognizing its potential to sever ties with Iran and strengthen Azerbaijan-Turkey relations.
He pointed to the renewed push for the “Zangezur Corridor” as evidence that similar geopolitical pressures are resurfacing. He suggested that the revival of such accusations is not a coincidence but part of a broader strategy to justify new concessions to Azerbaijan, including the opening of the Zangezur Corridor. Kocharyan argued that Pashinyan’s government might be downplaying these concessions by portraying them as less harmful than the Meghri exchange proposal from 25 years ago.
Kocharyan also underscored the importance of preserving the OSCE Minsk Group framework, which has long served as the primary international mechanism for resolving the Artsakh conflict. “Dissolving the Minsk Group would be a grave mistake. We would be left with no structure to rely on,” he stated.
Kocharyan likened the current administration to “a kindergarten, a psychiatric hospital, as the government itself.” He accused Pashinyan’s leadership of failing to address the most pressing issues facing the country, such as economic mismanagement and foreign policy failures, warning, “You can’t lead a country like this. The people are losing faith in the government.”
Regarding the future of Nagorno-Karabakh, Kocharyan remained cautious but suggested that peace could theoretically be achieved under the right conditions. However, he criticized the ongoing bilateral negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. “Peace is unlikely without external guarantees. Armenia is negotiating from a position of weakness,” he said, pointing out that any agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan would need clear assurances from international actors.
He concluded by expressing concerns over Armenia’s foreign policy trajectory, warning that the country faces unprecedented uncertainty on the global stage. Missteps, he cautioned, could lead to irreversible consequences. “If we continue on this path, we risk losing everything,” he said, urging Armenia’s leadership to adopt a more cautious and strategic approach to ensure long-term stability.
Kocharyan’s press conference captured the attention of media outlets, political analysts and parliamentarians, all seeking to understand the motivations behind his public remarks and his political goals. Russian media outlet EADaily reported that Kocharyan used the opportunity to announce the official start of the election season, signaling his intention to actively engage in Armenia’s political processes.
Meanwhile, another Russian publication Nezavisimaya Gazeta observed that his press conference came amid renewed debates over the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, with both Pashinyan’s government and Kocharyan’s political opponents eager to assign blame. The article noted that this issue is likely to dominate discussions in the lead-up to the 2026 parliamentary elections.
Hoory Minoyan
Latest posts by Hoory Minoyan (see all)
- The Region in Brief - March 19, 2025
- Opposition warns against “capitulation” as Armenia and Azerbaijan finalize text of treaty - March 14, 2025
- Ruben Vardanyan’s hunger strike continues in protest of sham trial - March 12, 2025
Mr. Kocharyan is hated by the Armenian people. Mr. Kocharyan lost the election. Mr. Kocharyan should therefore mind his business and simply move to Russia, where he is respected and welcomed. We Armenians need to respect the “democratic” wishes of the Armenian electorate. Mr. Pashinyan was given a political mandate in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023 and 2024 to do as he pleased with Armenia. God bless democracy and the American way…
Agree 100 %
As a Armenian from USA then don’t come to USA and beg us for money and weapons then. USA does not want Armenia and you will find out… Europe can’t even help Urkaine. No one cares about Armenia except Russians and India. Europe helped Azerbaijan including France during the genocidal war. Armenia even blew it jn Jerusalem losing that land too soon… you can bribe a Armenian with a cell phone and a few thousand dollars. Anyone capable has left Armenia already
Is that right? Is that why russians fleeing russia relocate to Armenia en masse? For 2 years now.
Soviet Era politicians like Mr. Kocharyan must retire from politics and let the new generation of Armenians to build a free, militarily strong and economically prosperous nation. Armenians have had enough of Turk-loving Russia, starting from 1920.
Of course, such as we are seeing now ??
Kocharyan speaks the truth.
Armenia is in danger.
There has to be a movement to get rid of Pashinyan and the Turk lovers who infest Armenian society.
Time to see the light and old soviet apparatchiks to retire. The Russia would save us argument which seemed so convincing in 2020 has been debunked rather in Ukraine lately and the spectacular collapse of its Syrian protegee should be taken into consideration. The funny thing is that Russia is something of a Turk lover thus pro Russian Armenians are Turk lovers by default and proxy! Although on Russia linked south front it ran an article critical of Azerbaijan citing state paranoia and claiming it should have allowed the striken plane to return to Azerbaijan when it was damaged whilst trying to land in Chechenya.
Azerbaijan has recently ordered BBC to close its local bureau.
Robert Kocharyan’s time as Armenia’s leader was a disaster for the country. His rule was marked by corruption, economic stagnation, political oppression, assassinations, poor foreign policy decisions that left Armenia weak and vulnerable. Now, he’s trying to rewrite history, blaming Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan for Armenia’s current problems while ignoring the fact that many of these issues started under his own leadership. His recent press conference was nothing more than an attempt to shift blame and make a political comeback. But the truth is, Kocharyan’s presidency did serious damage to Armenia, and bringing him back into power would be a huge step backward.
Kocharyan’s government was one of the most corrupt in Armenia’s history. Under his rule from 1998 to 2008, a small group of oligarchs—wealthy businessmen with political connections—took control of the economy, creating monopolies and shutting out competition. Ordinary Armenians saw little benefit from economic growth, while a handful of elites became extremely rich. This corruption led to massive inequality, making it difficult for regular people to succeed.
Even worse, Kocharyan was willing to use violence to stay in power. The most infamous example was the March 1, 2008, crackdown, when his government violently suppressed protests after a rigged election. Thousands of Armenians took to the streets, believing the election results were fraudulent. In response, Kocharyan declared a state of emergency and ordered police and soldiers to break up the protests. Ten people were killed, and many more were beaten or arrested. This was a turning point for Armenia, showing that Kocharyan was not interested in democracy—only in maintaining his grip on power.
Now, Kocharyan is attacking Pashinyan for his handling of Armenia’s foreign policy, but the truth is that Kocharyan made serious mistakes in this area himself. During his presidency, he made Armenia overly dependent on Russia for security, without building strong relationships with other countries. This meant that when Armenia faced a crisis—like Azerbaijan’s recent takeover of Artsakh—there was no one else to turn to for help.
Kocharyan also seriously considered giving away part of Armenia’s own land—the Meghri region—in exchange for Azerbaijan recognizing Artsakh. U.S. government documents confirm that in 1999, he discussed a land swap with Azerbaijan’s then-President Heydar Aliyev. If this deal had gone through, it would have cut Armenia off from Iran, strengthened Azerbaijan and Turkey’s influence in the region, and made Armenia even more vulnerable. Now, Kocharyan is trying to downplay this fact, but it shows that he was willing to make dangerous concessions that could have had devastating consequences.
Kocharyan’s time in power was also a disaster for Armenia’s economy. He allowed corrupt businessmen to dominate entire industries, which meant that small and medium-sized businesses had little chance to succeed. Foreign investors were hesitant to bring money into Armenia because they knew the economy was controlled by a handful of oligarchs.
As a result, many Armenians saw no future in their own country and left to find work elsewhere. During Kocharyan’s presidency, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated because they could not make a decent living in Armenia. This brain drain weakened the country, as young and talented workers moved abroad, leaving behind an economy that relied too much on remittances—money sent back home from family members working overseas.
Now, Kocharyan is criticizing Pashinyan’s handling of the economy, but the reality is that many of Armenia’s economic problems started under his watch. His government failed to create a fair, competitive business environment, and his policies made it harder—not easier—for Armenians to build a successful life at home.
One of Kocharyan’s biggest criticisms of Pashinyan is that he mishandled the Artsakh conflict. But Kocharyan himself played a major role in shaping the situation, and his failures made it harder for Armenia to defend Artsakh in the long run.
Kocharyan always positioned himself as a hardliner, refusing to be flexible in negotiations. Instead of trying to find a lasting solution that could have strengthened Armenia’s position, he rejected opportunities for peace and diplomacy. This meant that when conflicts arose, Armenia was often unprepared and isolated.
His decision to make Armenia completely dependent on Russia for security also backfired. Russia failed to intervene when Azerbaijan took control of Artsakh in 2023, leaving Armenia to deal with the consequences on its own. If Kocharyan had built stronger relationships with other countries, Armenia might have had more international support in critical moments. Instead, his narrow, Russia-first approach weakened Armenia’s ability to defend itself.
Kocharyan is now trying to present himself as a strong leader who can fix Armenia’s problems. But the truth is, he is part of the reason why these problems exist in the first place. His presidency was defined by corruption, violence, economic mismanagement, and failed diplomacy.
His recent press conference was nothing more than a political stunt to shift blame and set himself up for a comeback. But Armenia should not forget what his leadership was really like. His return to power would mean a return to authoritarianism, crony capitalism, and a foreign policy that leaves Armenia vulnerable and isolated.
Instead of looking back to failed leaders like Kocharyan, Armenia must focus on moving forward—toward a government that is democratic, transparent, and truly focused on improving the lives of its people.
One of the biggest dangers of bringing Kocharyan back to power is that he has always been more loyal to Russia’s interests than Armenia’s. Throughout his presidency, he acted as a puppet for the Kremlin, prioritizing Russia’s demands over what was best for Armenia. Even today, his rhetoric and policy positions are completely aligned with Russia’s agenda, showing that he is not an independent leader—he is Moscow’s man.
Under Kocharyan’s rule, Armenia became completely dependent on Russia for security, energy, and economic stability. Instead of developing a balanced foreign policy that would have given Armenia leverage on the world stage, he tied the country’s fate to Moscow, ensuring that Armenia would never have the ability to stand on its own. This blind loyalty weakened Armenia’s bargaining power, making it vulnerable when Russia failed to uphold its security commitments—something we saw when Azerbaijan took over Artsakh in 2023 and Moscow did nothing to stop it.
Even worse, Kocharyan sold Armenia’s most critical infrastructure to Russia at bargain prices. During his presidency, key sectors of the economy—including the country’s gas network, electricity grid, and railways—were handed over to Russian state-controlled companies. These deals did not benefit ordinary Armenians; they benefited Russian oligarchs and cemented Moscow’s control over Armenia’s economy. As a result, Armenia was left with little room to make independent decisions, as Russia controlled both its energy supply and major industries.
Now, Kocharyan is attacking Pashinyan for Armenia’s strained relationship with Russia, but he fails to acknowledge that Russia has repeatedly betrayed Armenia when it mattered most. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has grown closer to Azerbaijan and Turkey, even selling weapons to Baku that were later used against Armenian forces. Kocharyan refuses to admit this reality because his entire political career has been built on serving Moscow. He would rather see Armenia remain a vassal state to Russia than take steps toward true independence.
His criticism of Armenia’s efforts to engage with Western countries is also revealing. Kocharyan does not want Armenia to have multiple allies—he wants it to be locked into Russia’s orbit, no matter the cost. His opposition to Pashinyan’s attempts to diversify Armenia’s diplomatic partnerships shows that he is not interested in a strong, independent Armenia—he wants an Armenia that takes orders from Moscow.
Kocharyan’s return to power would not bring strength or stability; it would drag Armenia backward, keeping it under Russia’s thumb and preventing it from building real partnerships with other countries. Armenia needs leaders who put its national interests first—not Russian proxies who only care about pleasing the Kremlin.
Kocharyan was a very strong leader and our enemy took notice but in retrospect I’m not sure if having Artsakh Armenians running Armenia was the right idea. In any event, in terms of foreign policy, Armenia needs a leader who is neither pro western nor pro Russian but pro Armenian and fiercely patriotic first and foremost. Someone who has the political savvy to use these two to Armenia’s advantage rather than being a pawn in their hands.
In terms of internal policy, which is as much important since leaders are elected by the people, Armenia needs a leader that is open and transparent, is not power hungry and corrupt, applies the laws of the land equally to all people without nepotism, respects the will of the people, someone who understands he is the servant of the people and not the other way around. I am not sure if we have had one with those qualities yet. When we have one like that is when we will be taken seriously and treated with respect.
Does anyone in Armenia care what Kocharyan says. He a hated, corrupt megalomaniac.
Robert Kocharyan’s time as Armenia’s leader was a disaster for the country. His rule was marked by corruption, economic stagnation, political oppression, assassinations, poor foreign policy decisions that left Armenia weak and vulnerable. Now, he’s trying to rewrite history, blaming Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan for Armenia’s current problems while ignoring the fact that many of these issues started under his own leadership. His recent press conference was nothing more than an attempt to shift blame and make a political comeback. But the truth is, Kocharyan’s presidency did serious damage to Armenia, and bringing him back into power would be a huge step backward.
Kocharyan’s government was one of the most corrupt in Armenia’s history. Under his rule from 1998 to 2008, a small group of oligarchs—wealthy businessmen with political connections—took control of the economy, creating monopolies and shutting out competition. Ordinary Armenians saw little benefit from economic growth, while a handful of elites became extremely rich. This corruption led to massive inequality, making it difficult for regular people to succeed.
Even worse, Kocharyan was willing to use violence to stay in power. The most infamous example was the March 1, 2008, crackdown, when his government violently suppressed protests after a rigged election. Thousands of Armenians took to the streets, believing the election results were fraudulent. In response, Kocharyan declared a state of emergency and ordered police and soldiers to break up the protests. Ten people were killed, and many more were beaten or arrested. This was a turning point for Armenia, showing that Kocharyan was not interested in democracy—only in maintaining his grip on power.
Now, Kocharyan is attacking Pashinyan for his handling of Armenia’s foreign policy, but the truth is that Kocharyan made serious mistakes in this area himself. During his presidency, he made Armenia overly dependent on Russia for security, without building strong relationships with other countries. This meant that when Armenia faced a crisis—like Azerbaijan’s recent takeover of Artsakh—there was no one else to turn to for help.
Kocharyan also seriously considered giving away part of Armenia’s own land—the Meghri region—in exchange for Azerbaijan recognizing Artsakh. U.S. government documents confirm that in 1999, he discussed a land swap with Azerbaijan’s then-President Heydar Aliyev. If this deal had gone through, it would have cut Armenia off from Iran, strengthened Azerbaijan and Turkey’s influence in the region, and made Armenia even more vulnerable. Now, Kocharyan is trying to downplay this fact, but it shows that he was willing to make dangerous concessions that could have had devastating consequences.
Kocharyan’s time in power was also a disaster for Armenia’s economy. He allowed corrupt businessmen to dominate entire industries, which meant that small and medium-sized businesses had little chance to succeed. Foreign investors were hesitant to bring money into Armenia because they knew the economy was controlled by a handful of oligarchs.
As a result, many Armenians saw no future in their own country and left to find work elsewhere. During Kocharyan’s presidency, hundreds of thousands of people emigrated because they could not make a decent living in Armenia. This brain drain weakened the country, as young and talented workers moved abroad, leaving behind an economy that relied too much on remittances—money sent back home from family members working overseas.
Now, Kocharyan is criticizing Pashinyan’s handling of the economy, but the reality is that many of Armenia’s economic problems started under his watch. His government failed to create a fair, competitive business environment, and his policies made it harder—not easier—for Armenians to build a successful life at home.
One of Kocharyan’s biggest criticisms of Pashinyan is that he mishandled the Artsakh conflict. But Kocharyan himself played a major role in shaping the situation, and his failures made it harder for Armenia to defend Artsakh in the long run.
Kocharyan always positioned himself as a hardliner, refusing to be flexible in negotiations. Instead of trying to find a lasting solution that could have strengthened Armenia’s position, he rejected opportunities for peace and diplomacy. This meant that when conflicts arose, Armenia was often unprepared and isolated.
His decision to make Armenia completely dependent on Russia for security also backfired. Russia failed to intervene when Azerbaijan took control of Artsakh in 2023, leaving Armenia to deal with the consequences on its own. If Kocharyan had built stronger relationships with other countries, Armenia might have had more international support in critical moments. Instead, his narrow, Russia-first approach weakened Armenia’s ability to defend itself.
Kocharyan is now trying to present himself as a strong leader who can fix Armenia’s problems. But the truth is, he is part of the reason why these problems exist in the first place. His presidency was defined by corruption, violence, economic mismanagement, and failed diplomacy.
His recent press conference was nothing more than a political stunt to shift blame and set himself up for a comeback. But Armenia should not forget what his leadership was really like. His return to power would mean a return to authoritarianism, crony capitalism, and a foreign policy that leaves Armenia vulnerable and isolated.
Instead of looking back to failed leaders like Kocharyan, Armenia must focus on moving forward—toward a government that is democratic, transparent, and truly focused on improving the lives of its people.
One of the biggest dangers of bringing Kocharyan back to power is that he has always been more loyal to Russia’s interests than Armenia’s. Throughout his presidency, he acted as a puppet for the Kremlin, prioritizing Russia’s demands over what was best for Armenia. Even today, his rhetoric and policy positions are completely aligned with Russia’s agenda, showing that he is not an independent leader—he is Moscow’s man.
Under Kocharyan’s rule, Armenia became completely dependent on Russia for security, energy, and economic stability. Instead of developing a balanced foreign policy that would have given Armenia leverage on the world stage, he tied the country’s fate to Moscow, ensuring that Armenia would never have the ability to stand on its own. This blind loyalty weakened Armenia’s bargaining power, making it vulnerable when Russia failed to uphold its security commitments—something we saw when Azerbaijan took over Artsakh in 2023 and Moscow did nothing to stop it.
Even worse, Kocharyan sold Armenia’s most critical infrastructure to Russia at bargain prices. During his presidency, key sectors of the economy—including the country’s gas network, electricity grid, and railways—were handed over to Russian state-controlled companies. These deals did not benefit ordinary Armenians; they benefited Russian oligarchs and cemented Moscow’s control over Armenia’s economy. As a result, Armenia was left with little room to make independent decisions, as Russia controlled both its energy supply and major industries.
Now, Kocharyan is attacking Pashinyan for Armenia’s strained relationship with Russia, but he fails to acknowledge that Russia has repeatedly betrayed Armenia when it mattered most. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia has grown closer to Azerbaijan and Turkey, even selling weapons to Baku that were later used against Armenian forces. Kocharyan refuses to admit this reality because his entire political career has been built on serving Moscow. He would rather see Armenia remain a vassal state to Russia than take steps toward true independence.
His criticism of Armenia’s efforts to engage with Western countries is also revealing. Kocharyan does not want Armenia to have multiple allies—he wants it to be locked into Russia’s orbit, no matter the cost. His opposition to Pashinyan’s attempts to diversify Armenia’s diplomatic partnerships shows that he is not interested in a strong, independent Armenia—he wants an Armenia that takes orders from Moscow.
Kocharyan’s return to power would not bring strength or stability; it would drag Armenia backward, keeping it under Russia’s thumb and preventing it from building real partnerships with other countries. Armenia needs leaders who put its national interests first—not Russian proxies who only care about pleasing the Kremlin.
I would like to know what Kocharyan has to say about the 6 billion dollar he stole from Armenia. 🇦🇲 Kocharyan came to Armenia from Artsakh with empty pockets and robed the country while he was the president. He has to explain how he could become so rich with the salary of a President which could be a maximum of 10 million dollars in ten years. He is making a fool out of the citizens of this country. In fact, he should be charged with corruption and sent to prison. How about the killings in parliament in 1999. What about the March 1 massacre of 10 people in central Yerevan. He should be charged on murder and go to prison for life.
We want answers from Robert Kocharyan on the above mentioned issues. We want answers it now!No more playing games the people.
Wasn’t this guy a very corrupt leader? Has he returned the monies he stashed away? Instead of promoting division he should be supporting the current government or pack up and leave to wherever his money is hidden.
@ Jack: we don’t know, right? He wasn’t convicted for that. Did they find any’hidden money’ in the past 6 years? These are just rumors.
As an outsider, nevertheless, I must agree with Harut Sassounian in 2020 that Armenians have not had a competent leader since one Khrimian Hyrig, whose observations concerning the Berlin Congress in 1878 ought to yield advice equally to the Armenian leadership of today. Sending Armenia’s treasured forces to augment the United States’ unwarranted and illegal occupation of Kosovo, for instance, is not the way; nor is sending Armenians to NATO’s “peace” training in Budapest, for that matter!
Armenia’s misfortune is also being led by corrupt, greedy, power-hungry, incompetent and visionless leaders, and that Armenian people have voted for them and will vote for them. Not just one or two, but a row of such leaders. The whole body is rotten and broken, and it will be a herculean task to fix it and clean it up from top to bottom, and Armenia is in urgent need of systemic reforms. If nothing is done to address this systemic problem, let alone fix this, many more Kocharyans, Sargsyans and Pashinyans will be voted to office, and Armenia will continue to languish.
Robert Kocharyan’s recent press conference was a masterclass in revisionist history, misdirection, and political self-preservation. While he attempts to paint himself as a strategic thinker with a firm grasp of geopolitics, his statements rely on selective storytelling and outright distortions. Let’s break them down.
Kocharyan’s attempt to frame Pashinyan as a clueless leader who doesn’t understand global geopolitics is a tired narrative that ignores the situation Armenia inherited after decades of mismanagement—including his own presidency.
When Kocharyan left office in 2008, Armenia was already deeply dependent on Russia, economically stagnant, and diplomatically weak. His administration did nothing to diversify Armenia’s alliances, integrate with the West, or strengthen the country’s position in global diplomacy. If anyone failed to grasp geopolitics, it was the leadership before Pashinyan.
Claiming that Pashinyan’s foreign policy has put Armenia’s sovereignty at risk is also ironic coming from Kocharyan, a man who spent years ensuring that Armenia was tied hand and foot to Moscow, giving Russia control over key infrastructure, the energy sector, and military bases. The reality is that Armenia had little sovereignty to begin with, and Kocharyan was one of the reasons why.
Kocharyan’s claim that Pashinyan “handed over” Artsakh to Azerbaijan is an outright lie. The 2020 war wasn’t some abrupt event caused by a single misstep in 2019—it was a direct consequence of decades of corruption, military stagnation, and a failure to recognize geopolitical shifts.
• During Kocharyan’s presidency, Azerbaijan’s military spending skyrocketed while Armenia’s remained stagnant. The reason? Kocharyan’s government, along with Serzh Sargsyan’s after him, funneled resources into oligarchic networks rather than strengthening Armenia’s defenses.
• Corruption was rampant in the Armenian military, with underfunding, outdated equipment, and strategic complacency—all problems Pashinyan inherited in 2018.
• Azerbaijan was preparing for war long before Pashinyan was even in politics. Its alliance with Turkey was deepening, and its energy revenues were being used to modernize its military. Meanwhile, Kocharyan’s Armenia failed to anticipate this shift, leaving the country vulnerable.
Blaming Pashinyan for the loss of Artsakh is like blaming a firefighter for not saving a house that was set on fire years ago.
Kocharyan’s insistence that the OSCE Minsk Group should remain central to Artsakh negotiations is another example of clinging to a failed strategy. The reality is that the Minsk Group was dead long before Pashinyan came into power—not because of Armenia, but because of geopolitical realities:
• Azerbaijan never took the Minsk Group seriously, viewing it as a stalling mechanism.
• Russia, a key Minsk Group co-chair, had no interest in enforcing a fair settlement—it benefited from the frozen conflict, as it allowed Moscow to control Armenia and keep Baku in check.
• After Russia invaded Ukraine, the Minsk Group’s credibility collapsed. The U.S. and France refused to cooperate with Russia, making the group politically irrelevant.
Kocharyan’s call to “preserve” the Minsk Group is just nostalgia for a process that never truly worked.
Kocharyan’s comments about Russia’s lack of intervention in 2023 reveal his fundamental misunderstanding of power politics. He suggests that Armenia “betrayed” Russia, and that’s why Moscow refused to intervene. This is both misleading and dangerous.
• Russia didn’t intervene in 2023 for the same reason it didn’t intervene in 2020—because Azerbaijan is more valuable to Moscow than Armenia.
• Russia’s so-called “peacekeepers” in Artsakh did nothing to stop Azerbaijan’s final takeover, proving that Moscow never intended to protect Armenian interests.
• Armenia’s participation in Western-led democracy summits or criticism of Russia’s war in Ukraine were not acts of betrayal—they were attempts to secure new alliances precisely because Russia was failing to act as a reliable partner.
Russia’s lack of support for Armenia isn’t about loyalty; it’s about pure self-interest. Kocharyan’s belief that bowing to Moscow’s every demand would have changed anything is naive at best and deliberately misleading at worst.
One of the most glaring contradictions in Kocharyan’s statements is his attack on Pashinyan regarding the so-called “Zangezur Corridor.” He warns that the Armenian government is making dangerous concessions, yet he himself was involved in discussions to give away Meghri in exchange for Artsakh’s recognition.
Kocharyan tries to downplay this, claiming the idea was discussed but never pursued. But the declassified U.S. State Department documents confirm that he was actively involved in talks about territorial swaps. Now, he’s trying to rewrite history to attack Pashinyan for something he himself considered doing.
Furthermore, his alarmist rhetoric about the Zangezur Corridor ignores the fact that Azerbaijan’s demand for an extraterritorial corridor has been firmly rejected by Pashinyan’s government. There is no agreement allowing Azerbaijan unchecked control over Armenian territory.
Kocharyan is fear-mongering to distract from his own past.
It’s laughable that Kocharyan accuses Pashinyan’s administration of economic mismanagement when his own presidency was defined by rampant corruption, oligarchy, and economic stagnation. Under Kocharyan:
• A handful of oligarchs controlled entire industries, suffocating economic growth and innovation.
• Political repression was the norm—2008’s post-election crackdown saw peaceful protesters killed and opposition figures jailed.
• Armenia became even more dependent on Russia, failing to develop independent trade relationships or attract Western investment.
Today, under Pashinyan, Armenia’s economy has seen record GDP growth, increased foreign investment, and a more competitive economic environment. Kocharyan’s attempt to claim the moral high ground on economic policy is a joke.
Perhaps the most telling part of Kocharyan’s press conference is what’s missing: any realistic alternative plan for Armenia’s future.
• He criticizes Armenia’s foreign policy but offers no concrete diplomatic strategy.
• He blames Pashinyan for losing Artsakh but ignores his own administration’s failures that led to military weakness.
• He warns of economic collapse but never addresses how he himself helped create a corrupt oligarchic system that stifled Armenia’s economy for years.
Kocharyan’s speech is nothing but a transparent attempt to revive his political career by exploiting national grievances. But Armenians haven’t forgotten his past.
Robert Kocharyan built his political career on authoritarianism, and dependence on Russia. Now, he wants to erase that history and position himself as Armenia’s savior.
His press conference was full of misleading narratives, blatant hypocrisy, and fear-mongering—but no real solutions. Armenia faces challenges, but looking to Kocharyan for answers is like asking the arsonist how to put out the fire.
If Kocharyan really cared about Armenia’s future, he wouldn’t be trying to manipulate history—he’d be answering for his own shortcomings.
Kocharian did speak the truth. The current gov is entirely to blame for the loss of Artsakh and Armenia’s weakened position. And the people that continue to support pashoglu and even those who helped bring him and his ilk to power are to be blamed for this disaster.
@ Hagop
Well explained, hopefully the passing of time and Russia difficulties in Ukraine and it’s let down of Arktash post 2020 can help Armenians see things for what they actually are rather than what they thought they were . The Russia and Russia and only Russia policies of kocharyan meant that Russia had a neo colonial monopoly of Armenia and could treat them as they pleased which was to fail Armenia whilst Russia was having extensive sales of weapons to erm Azerbaijan just ready to be used upon Armenia. The relative decline of Armenia position tied in with the ingratiating policies towards Russia whilst Azerbaijan made better use of its independence and eclipsed Armenia which would be exposed in 2020 but the Kremlin canard seemed a plausible conjecture until it’s invasion of Ukraine exposed it’s hypocrisy and and more significantly it’s limitations. There are those who quote the battle hardened leaders of 1994 as if as this was applicable that was 26 years prior. Although not really within the scope of this publication Germany which had done so well in the early 1940s and had many battle hardened commanders would as we all know end up being overrun and signing unconditional surrender in 1945 . Thus there had been too much riding on the glory from the 1991 1994 conflict and a consequencial conceit and complacency.
Brothers!
I am glad to see so many patriotic Armenians here. Armenian’s need to reject anything and anyone that is connected to Russia. Armenia’s future is with great peoples of Europe and American. We have to pursue this at all cost. Let Slava Ukrainii be your inspiration. Like the great Armenian historian Levon Shahinyan said, it’s better to be a dog for Turks than be an agent of Russians.