Nikol Pashinyan’s hollow message, hypocrisy and isolation
Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s recent visit to the United States, held from February 3-7, 2025, was neither a diplomatic triumph nor a strategic engagement with American leadership. Instead, it was a carefully orchestrated photo-op designed to give an illusion of support while further isolating him from the Armenian nation.
His team’s forays for a meeting with President Donald Trump, or one between Anna Hakobyan and the First Lady, were roundly rebuffed. Ultimately, he squeaked in a handshake with Vice President JD Vance—facilitated and accompanied by the Turkish ambassador to the United States, according to an internal source.
Pashinyan, already viewed by many in Armenia and the diaspora as a traitor, handpicked a group for a meeting at the Armenian Embassy in Washington, D.C., avoiding the broader Armenian-American community. The visit underscored not only his deepening hypocrisy but also his continued push for policies that directly undermine Armenian sovereignty and national security.
A controlled gathering, a dismissed opportunity
The meeting at the Armenian Embassy was a glaring failure. The attendees were primarily Armenian diplomatic staff and government-connected figures in the Washington area, with no real ties to the Armenian-American community. Shockingly absent were representatives from major Armenian-American organizations, the Armenian Apostolic Church Diocese and Prelacy, the Armenian Missionary Association of America, the Armenian Catholic Eparchy or other figures capable of offering critical perspectives on his policies. This was not an oversight; it was a deliberate attempt to shield himself from the reality of his widespread unpopularity among Armenian-Americans.
For the Armenian diaspora, this move was an insult. The Armenian-American community has been a steadfast advocate of Armenian sovereignty, human rights and justice for Artsakh. By bypassing most of the community in favor of a controlled audience, Pashinyan further alienated himself from the very people who could have been his strongest allies—if only his policies were not so openly destructive to the Armenian cause.
Relatedly, the Armenian-American individuals who attended Pashinyan’s embassy gathering were not just passive participants in his deception. By lending their presence to this charade, they offered the illusion that Pashinyan retains community support. Their participation raises critical questions: Are they unaware of the extent of Pashinyan’s failures and betrayals, or do they simply value their personal affiliations over the fate of Armenia and Artsakh?
Hollow rhetoric and distorted history
During his remarks in Washington, Pashinyan’s hollow rhetoric was filled with self-congratulatory statements that ignored the destruction he had presided over. He described Armenia’s current state as an “opportunity for sovereignty,” conveniently ignoring that Armenia was already sovereign before his tenure.
More egregiously, he added that the Armenians who perished in the 2020 war sacrificed their lives for this opportunity, stating, “We must now concentrate on using the opportunity created by that sacrifice.” In doing so, he sought to reframe a devastating loss—one largely attributed to his incompetence and mismanagement or betrayal of the nation—as a necessary step toward progress.
The reality is far different. Pashinyan’s government has actively facilitated Armenia’s geopolitical decline. Under his leadership, Artsakh was abandoned to Azerbaijan, culminating in genocide; over 200 square kilometers of Armenia’s sovereign land are now occupied by Azerbaijani forces; the Armenian military was weakened before the 2020 war, precipitating a catastrophic defeat; and diplomatic concessions to Baku continue, including an apparent willingness to withdraw international legal complaints for Azerbaijan’s war crimes.
Pashinyan’s willingness to abandon Armenia’s legal cases against Azerbaijan signals a troubling shift from justice. These cases, currently in international courts, seek accountability for Azerbaijan’s war crimes, including the mistreatment of Armenian prisoners of war and the destruction of Armenian cultural and religious heritage. With the withdrawal of these legal actions, Pashinyan would grant Azerbaijan impunity for its aggression—further emboldening Baku’s expansionist ambitions.
His hypocrisy also extends to domestic policy. Pashinyan frequently speaks of democracy and human rights. Yet, his government has engaged in political repression, arrests of opposition figures, death of opposition figures under detention and the erosion of judicial independence. His administration’s continued refusal to address these concerns exposes the emptiness of his democratic rhetoric.
Diplomatic isolation and rejection
Pashinyan’s visit to Washington revealed undeniable signs of diplomatic isolation. His meetings were limited to second-tier officials, with little information shared with the public. The contrast between his visit and that of the Georgian president—who engaged with U.S. leadership on substantive issues—highlighted just how little serious consideration Pashinyan commands.
After leaving Washington, Pashinyan also traveled across Europe. During a meeting with Armenian community members in Paris on February 11, Pashinyan proclaimed, “All parties in Armenia are the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF). We are all children of the ARF, but now, we must focus on the 29,800 square kilometers.”
Jonathan Spangenberg, chair of the Central Council of Armenians in Germany, said that Pashinyan’s meeting in Munich was overwhelmingly rejected by the community. Absent were the Armenian Diocese, its 16 church unions and major organizations, including the Armenian General Benevolent Union, the Armenian Relief Society and various youth, academic and professional groups. This further underscored Pashinyan’s isolation and lack of legitimacy among the Armenian community in Germany.
The future at stake
Pashinyan’s policies are not simply misguided; they are actively undermining Armenia’s future. His government’s refusal to maintain strong diplomatic alliances, failure to modernize the military, and willingness to concede territory and legal claims to Azerbaijan reveal a dangerous trajectory.
His approach to Turkey is equally concerning. By pushing for the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations without preconditions, he ignores the existential threat posed by Ankara’s continued support for Baku’s expansionism. While dialogue is not inherently negative, engaging with Turkey from a position of weakness only emboldens those who seek to erase Armenia’s historical grievances.
Most egregiously, Pashinyan’s statements suggest an effort to rewrite history itself. His remarks questioning the necessity of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide and suggesting that Armenia should abandon its historical grievances for the sake of diplomacy are deeply troubling. Such rhetoric dishonors the memory of those who perished and weakens Armenia’s moral and legal standing in global forums.
Pashinyan’s visit to Washington was not an exercise in diplomacy or progress—it was a spectacle designed to obscure his failures. The Armenian diaspora must recognize the danger he poses and refuse to be complicit in his deception. Armenians worldwide are responsible for challenging his narrative, exposing his lies and demanding accountability.
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
Now it is a matter of urgency to investigate who financed the velvet revolution in Armenia, and if enemies of Armenia were involved in supporting him to power.
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.
Thanks for objective analysis. Pashinyan has significant power, and it appears that there is no way to stop him. His staff looks like a group of specially chosen paralyzed-obeying people. There is no evidence that the members of his cabinet can analyze and confront him independently. With that enormous power, he and his wife act as a delusional maniac. How to stop the nonsense. He talks and does without responsibility, particularly when under the stress. Thanks again for objective analysis.
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.