Nikol Pashinyan’s hollow message, hypocrisy and isolation

The fact that Pashinyan was basically ignored by the top officials in the Trump administration should be a warning as to what lies ahead.

It would be nice to have a report on the actions, if any, by the Armenian-American advocates with Secretary of State Marco Rubio who as US Senator was reported to be a supporter of Armenia’s conflict with Azerbaijan, and by extension Turkey.

The Armenian-American community, while providing financial support, appears to have done very little to influence the US _policy_ towards Armenia with the US State Department. There was the ‘strategic alliance’ signed at the end of the Biden Administration but that carried no concrete plans or even an indication any substantive policy changes.

The snubbing of Pashinyan by Trump’s team implies that there has not even been an acknowledgement by the current administration of the perilous plight that our brothers and sisters in Armenia are now facing. More than likely it is an indication that the Turks and Azeris have already conveyed their goals to finish what they started in 1896 and that the current administration will just look the other way.

This argument is full of exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright distortions. Let’s break it down piece by piece.

1. The “Photo-Op” Claim Is Just Lazy Criticism.

Saying Pashinyan’s visit was just a staged “photo-op” ignores how diplomacy actually works. Leaders don’t always get face time with presidents or top officials, and meetings at different levels of government are common. The fact that he didn’t meet Trump or the First Lady doesn’t mean the visit was meaningless—it just means meetings were held at a different level.

And that bit about his handshake with JD Vance being “facilitated by the Turkish ambassador”? That’s thrown in purely to stir outrage, without any proof. If there’s an actual source, let’s see it. Otherwise, this is just conspiracy-mongering.

2. The Embassy Meeting Wasn’t Some Dark Conspiracy.

The argument that Pashinyan “handpicked” his audience to avoid criticism is weak. Every leader structures meetings to have productive discussions instead of turning them into shouting matches. Just because certain groups weren’t in the room doesn’t mean they were “banned” from participating.

Also, the idea that those who did attend were somehow “complicit” in a deception is both insulting and ridiculous. People can meet with Pashinyan without blindly supporting him. Dismissing them as puppets is just lazy reasoning.

3. Using the 2020 War to Score Political Points.

One of the most cynical parts of this argument is the claim that Pashinyan is “reframing” the deaths of Armenian soldiers as some kind of opportunity. Any leader dealing with a national tragedy has to find a way forward. Recognizing the sacrifice of soldiers while trying to rebuild the country isn’t betrayal—it’s leadership.

And let’s be real: blaming Pashinyan alone for the war completely ignores the failures of previous governments. Armenia didn’t suddenly become vulnerable in 2018. The military had been mismanaged for decades, corruption was rampant, and Azerbaijan had been preparing for war for years. It’s convenient to pin everything on Pashinyan now, but it’s also dishonest.

4. Fear-Mongering About Diplomacy.

The idea that Pashinyan is “abandoning” legal cases against Azerbaijan is pure speculation. Armenia still has multiple international legal challenges open, and diplomacy often requires careful timing when it comes to legal actions. Suggesting he’s handing Azerbaijan a free pass is just another way to stir outrage without facts.

And let’s talk about the claim that he’s engaging with Turkey “from a position of weakness.” What exactly is the alternative? Refusing to talk to Turkey hasn’t done Armenia any favors in the past. Dialogue doesn’t mean surrender. It means recognizing that Armenia can’t afford to isolate itself while its neighbors keep moving forward.

5. Comparing Pashinyan’s Visit to Georgia’s Is a Cheap Shot.

Bringing up how the Georgian president got “better meetings” in the U.S. is a pointless argument. Armenia and Georgia have completely different geopolitical situations, and the U.S. treats them accordingly. This is like complaining that your coworker had a longer chat with the boss than you did—it’s irrelevant.

6. Trying to Turn the Diaspora Against Pashinyan.

The argument repeatedly tries to paint Pashinyan as an enemy of the Armenian diaspora, as if all Armenian-Americans are united against him. That’s just not true. Opinions on him are deeply divided, both in Armenia and abroad. Pretending there’s a single “diaspora voice” is dishonest.

And the suggestion that anyone who doesn’t oppose him is “complicit” is just more emotional manipulation. People can support or engage with Pashinyan while still criticizing certain policies. It’s not all-or-nothing.

7. Empty Rhetoric, No Real Solutions.

The piece ends with dramatic calls to “expose lies” and “demand accountability,” but what’s the actual plan? Overthrowing Pashinyan with no clear alternative? Returning to the failed policies of past governments? There’s no real strategy here—just outrage for the sake of outrage.

Final Thoughts.

This entire argument is built on exaggeration, selective outrage, and misinformation. It doesn’t offer solutions, just finger-pointing. If the goal is to have a real conversation about Armenia’s future, this kind of commentary isn’t helping.