Turkish Forum

Tag: Pashinyan

  • Baku Hires PR Firm for $4.7 Million To Cleanse Image before Climate Summit

    Baku Hires PR Firm for $4.7 Million To Cleanse Image before Climate Summit

    Azerbaijan’s dictatorial and corrupt government is paying $4.7 million to a US PR firm in order to whitewash its tarnished image prior to hosting the prestigious COP29 international conference in Baku this November.

    In February, Azerbaijan hired the American public relations firm, Teneo Strategy, to make “the warring petrostate look like a Mother Teresa,” according to Nick Cleveland-Stout who wrote in ResponsibleStatecraft.org an article titled, “How Azerbaijan is ‘peacewashing’ its image ahead of COP29; Baku is hosting the climate summit in November with some help from a high-priced PR firm.”

    To earn its excessive pay, Teneo contacted “144 journalists in 88 different global media outlets some 500 times to promote Azerbaijan’s COP29 agenda….  In just one day, the PR firm … treated three journalists to dinner at a five-star hotel restaurant in Nagorno-Karabakh during a media forum. The very next day, one of them celebrated Azerbaijan’s newly established control of the region in an article published in Pakistan. A few weeks later, he tweeted that Azerbaijan is ‘lucky to have such a leader’ in President Ilham Aliyev.” 

    An Azerbaijani official announced that his country had hired Teneo to “establish the COP29’s communications function, including narrative development, initial content development, communications and engagement campaign planning, issues management, organizational development, establishing media relations capability, and media training.” Nick Cleveland-Stout reported that “At least five Teneo executives are always on the ground in Baku — racking up a tab of $350,000 on airfare and hotels to date.”

    Hikmat Hajiyev, Pres. Aliyev’s top advisor, shamelessly announced a “COP29 Truce,” meaning that Azerbaijan is calling on all warring parties in the world to declare a ceasefire during the November conference. Such a deceitful announcement is being made by a country whose leader has been issuing repeated threats to invade Armenia. This reminds us of the biblical admonition: “Physician, heal thyself!”

    Nick Cleveland-Stout wrote: “Azerbaijan has become notorious for flaunting its oil wealth to court foreign officials, lawmakers, and journalists with gifts, free flights, and luxury hotels, dubbed ‘caviar diplomacy’…. According to a trip itinerary obtained by RS [Responsible Statecraft] via a Freedom of Access Act Request, state lawmakers from Maine spent nine days in Azerbaijan in May with flights, food, and lodging paid for by the State Committee on Work with Diaspora of the Republic of Azerbaijan, the same agency that hosted [NY Mayor Eric] Adams’ aides. Part of the itinerary included two days learning about ‘new development after liberation from occupation’ in Nagorno-Karabakh. ‘Guess I should locate my passport. I am very excited!’ wrote State Representative Jill Duson in response to the invitation. In June, Azerbaijan’s embassy in Washington even hired former Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Utah) in part to coordinate congressional delegation visits to Azerbaijan.”

    Furthermore, Nick Cleveland-Stout mentioned that Azerbaijan had hired another PR company, “The Friedlander Group, a firm retained by Azerbaijan’s foreign ministry, [which] is leading the charge on Capitol Hill in Washington. An email obtained by RS shows that the firm sent an email on September 23 to members of Congress asking them not to sign onto a congressional letter calling for Baku to release Armenian prisoners ahead of COP29.” The firm’s CEO, Ezra Friedlander, wrote to members of Congress “we owe Azerbaijan praise, an apology and an open hand.”

    Returning to the PR firm, Teneo, Nick Cleveland-Stout reported that: “When Azerbaijan flew out some 300 foreign journalists to the newly-controlled Nagorno-Karabakh region for a media forum in July, Teneo held meetings and hosted expensive dinners — during which it discussed interviews with Azerbaijan’s COP leadership team.”

    The RS reporter wrote that: “Three days after meeting with Teneo, the influential Indian newspaper, The Hindu, published an article titled “Climate conference in November to emphasize ‘peace’ and ‘truce.’” The firm also “facilitated a New York Times article featuring [Mukhtar] Babayev [COP’s president] in Azerbaijan that was based in part on a trip to Nagorno-Karabakh.”

    Teneo has assigned a 17-person team to the pro-Azeri PR task. Azerbaijan’s officials are very pleased by the propaganda Teneo is doing for their country. Babayev told Azeri TV that “the government’s media strategy to change international perceptions of Azerbaijan is a success story, including its ‘restoration of territorial integrity,’ referring to its offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh. Without mentioning Teneo by name, he credited a new media team ‘consisting of serious specialists’…. Thanks to the work of this professional team, there has not been a week this year when we have not provided information and made statements to international media…. Now they all understand and see the strength of our country.”

    The most unfortunate issue is that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is the one who allowed Azerbaijan to host the conference by lifting Armenia’s veto in return for the release of 32 Armenian prisoners of war in exchange for two Azeri murderers who penetrated Armenia’s border in 2023 and killed an innocent Armenian worker. 

    While I welcome the return of the 32 Armenian prisoners, I believe that Pashinyan should have bargained for Azerbaijan’s release of all Armenian prisoners of war and the eight Artsakh political hostages held in Baku. Pres. Aliyev was so obsessed with hosting the prestigious UN conference in Azerbaijan that he would have agreed to such a comprehensive deal.

    If Pashinyan had made such a deal, Armenians and sympathetic non-Armenians around the world would not have needed to work so hard to pressure Azerbaijan to release all the Armenian detainees prior to the November conference.

  • Pashinyan’s Remarks at Diaspora Summit: Wrong Ideas, Wrong timing, Wrong Place

    Pashinyan’s Remarks at Diaspora Summit: Wrong Ideas, Wrong timing, Wrong Place

    I would like to comment on Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s shocking statements at the Global Armenian Summit in Yerevan on September 18, 2024.

    For an hour and a half Pashinyan answered the moderator’s questions in front of the gathered hundreds of Diaspora Armenians from around the world.

    Before we delve into the substance of Pashinyan’s answers, his basic problem is that he often says whatever comes to his mind at the moment, without giving it much thought.

    On September 19, 2024, in the presence of a large number of Diaspora Armenians, Pashinyan made three major mistakes: 1) he said very wrong things; 2) he said them to the wrong people (Diaspora Armenians); and 3) he picked the most inappropriate time, a few days before the anniversary of Armenia’s Independence, to disparage his own patriotism as well as the patriotism of all Armenians.

    Here are excerpts from Pashinyan’s shocking remarks on patriotism: “I will tell you as I tell my family, the biggest problem we had is our patriotism. Moreover, there is no derision, no sarcasm in what I am saying. The biggest problem we had, the biggest problem I had was my patriotism with the perception that this model of patriotism has nothing to do with our homeland. It is simply an imperial model of patriotism, which was introduced into our social psychology through books, films, texts, speeches, heroes, characters, names and images.”

    Pashinyan illogically told the audience that “this model of patriotism is aimed at excluding the existence of an independent and sovereign state…. But, this model of patriotism is so that we should not have a homeland, but only love it in theory, have a theoretical Armenia and love it, hanging it on the wall, in toasts, on cakes, but not on the ground, which is what happened to us in the last several hundred years.”

    Thereafter, Pashinyan blamed Armenians and ‘others’: “I’m talking so much about a garrison. I understand that many people think I have in mind that others have turned us into a garrison. No, we have turned ourselves into a garrison. We have turned the Republic of Armenia into a garrison by believing that this is not a country which has to secure the well-being of its citizens, but rather a base through which we should reach other goals…. Others saw that there is a lot of fertile ground and planted seeds to reap the fruits necessary for them …. For our own good, we must recognize the destructive aspect of our patriotism. It would have been in the best interests of the Republic of Armenia if I were not a patriot. That is the greatest harm I have caused — the love I have given to my country and my people…. However, the main problem is that neither you nor I are the creators of that love. That is an imperial love, shaped by the empire, instilled in us,” Pashinyan said.

    Pashinyan then falsely attributed Armenians’ efforts to commemorate the Armenian Genocide to manipulations by the Soviet Union, ‘allowing’ Soviet Armenia to commemorate the Armenian Genocide, in order to counter Turkey and NATO. He wrongly claimed that the Soviet Union allowed the Genocide Monument to be built in Yerevan at a time when the Soviet Union and the United States were on the verge of a nuclear war. Thus, he denigrated the Armenian Genocide by shamefully describing it as a tool for Soviet propaganda.

    Most of what Pashinyan said was wrong, disrespectful and anti-Armenian. Pashinyan made these statements in front of the hundreds of patriotic Armenians who had come all the way to Yerevan from around the world to show their support for the homeland, only to be told that patriotism is a ‘destructive’ and foreign-inspired concept. His words were also ill-timed coming just days before the 33rd Anniversary of Armenia’s Independence. This is the deliberate policy of the Pashinyan regime to create a split between Armenia and the Diaspora, and divide Armenia’s population into supporters of the former and current leaders.

    During the same interview, Pashinyan made another erroneous and highly inappropriate remark, criticizing and dismissing the humanitarian aid sent by the Diaspora, in front of the gathered hundreds of Armenians from around the world.

    He said: “I would like very much that Armenia stop being an object of compassion — to get out of that situation. Of course, I don’t know if — it is not always that my instructions are correctly implemented — for example, I have forbidden — I don’t know how much they are implanting it — that they [the Diaspora] send whatever used clothing, whatever used cars, I don’t know, send half worn out tires, send half worn out shoes for state institutions, I don’t know, for orphanages. Pardon me, but the Republic of Armenia is in a position to provide the minimum for institutions falling under its responsibility. In other words, from the perception of sending used things to Armenia, and then for months to publicize that — I don’t know — so much medicine has been sent which has a one-week expiration date. I am not happy with that, I am in conflict with that perception of the Republic of Armenia. The Republic of Armenia is a sovereign state which has complexities [difficulties]. But, pardon me, which country does not have complexities?”

    Pashinyan’s disparaging remarks about the aid sent to Armenia by the Diaspora are deeply insulting. He should not talk about things he knows nothing about. I am the President of Armenia Artsakh Fund which has sent to Armenia in the past 35 years over one billion dollars of aid, mostly medicines. We strictly follow all Armenian laws and procedures. No one can send to Armenia medicines that expire in one week. Donors need to obtain in advance an import license from the Ministry of Health which requires that all medicines have a minimum of one year expiration date. Otherwise, they are confiscated and destroyed by customs officers.

    Instead of criticizing the Diaspora’s aid, the Armenian government should issue a list of priority items that the population needs and encourage the potential donors to send those items. Pashinyan is acting as if he is the Prime Minister of a wealthy country with a population that needs nothing. Regrettably, that is not the case. Instead of disparaging the aid sent by the Diaspora, the Armenian government should express its gratitude to all donors and encourage them to do more.

    The Prime Minister’s false statements about patriotism and humanitarian aid left many in the audience in shock. Pashinyan does not seem to realize that his words have consequences on Armenia and Armenians. He is no longer an irresponsible street protester who can say anything that comes to his mind.

  • Why Can’t Pashinyan Remember the Document He Signed at the End of the 2020 War?

    Why Can’t Pashinyan Remember the Document He Signed at the End of the 2020 War?

    It is incomprehensible that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan would forget important details of the document he signed with President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and President Vladimir Putin of Russia, at the end of the 2020 Artsakh War.

    More incomprehensible is the fact that while Pashinyan is distorting some of the provisions of the 2020 agreement, he is blaming others for misrepresenting it. Shockingly, he then challenges them to read the text of the agreement, reminding them that it is publicly available.

    Pashinyan signed the 2020 agreement that called for the unblocking of “all economic and transport connections in the region,” specifically mentioning a road that will cross Armenia to link mainland Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhichevan. Since 2020 he has repeated dozens of times that Armenia is ready “this morning” to allow Azerbaijanis to travel to Nakhichevan through Armenia, not once mentioning, until his August 31, 2024 press conference, that Armenians also have the right to travel through Azerbaijan to Russia.

    Fortunately, Azerbaijan has undermined this provision of the 2020 agreement by insisting that the road that will cross Armenia should be a “corridor” which means that the Armenian territory that Azeris will pass through is to be under Azerbaijan’s control. This is contrary to the provisions of the 2020 agreement and a violation of Armenia’s sovereignty. If it were not for Aliyev’s obstruction, Azeris would have been traveling through Armenia to Nakhichevan for several years by now.

    To make matters worse, as a result of the dispute between Armenia and Russia resulting from Russian peacekeepers not carrying out their duties of protecting Artsakh Armenians and allowing Azerbaijan to completely occupy Artsakh on Sept. 19, 2023, Pashinyan has been wrongly insisting that Russia has no role to play in the Zangezur road. He is thus ignoring point 9 of the agreement he signed in 2020 which stated: “The Border Guard Service of the Russian Federal Security Service shall be responsible for overseeing the transport connections [between Armenia and Azerbaijan].”

    Pashinyan could have been justified in rejecting the Russian role if he had said that the 2020 agreement is no longer valid as both Russia and Azerbaijan have violated many of its provisions, such as the lack of the protection of Artsakh Armenians, completing the occupation of Artsakh, and not returning all the Armenian prisoners of war. However, Pashinyan insists that the Nov. 9, 2020 agreement is still valid, thus contradicting himself.

    Furthermore, Pashinyan wrongly insists that the Nov. 9, 2020 agreement does not mention any Russian role for the Zangezur road. He challenges everyone to read the text of the 2020 agreement and then quotes from its point 9, leaving out the sentence that calls for Russian border guards to oversee the road between mainland Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan.

    To add to the confusion, after insisting that Russia has no role in this road, Pashinyan contradicts himself once again by claiming that Russia is supposed to “monitor” the road, not “oversee” it. Making his argument more bizarre, Pashinyan says that Russian monitors don’t have to be physically present on Armenia’s border to monitor the Zangezur road and that they can monitor it remotely from anywhere else, like Moscow.

    In the meantime, the Zangezur road has become a political football between Azerbaijan, Turkey, Iran, Russia, and the West. For a long time, Russia had been pushing for the opening of the Zangezur road so it can control this critical artery that will link the Central Asian Turkic states with Azerbaijan and Turkey, all the way to Europe. If the West, instead of Russia, oversees this key road, this would reduce Russia’s influence in the region.

    Pashinyan tried to appease all the sides involved in this controversy by suddenly announcing that an international organization could monitor the transit of Azeri goods and people. However, just as quickly, he withdrew his suggestion because Azerbaijan would have never accepted that the same third party would also monitor the transit of Armenian goods through Azerbaijan.

    Azerbaijan and Iran have come up with an alternative solution. They agreed to allow the movement of goods from mainland Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan through a road in Northern Iran. Even though Azerbaijan and Turkey had been pressuring Armenia to open “the Zangezur Corridor,” Armenia and Azerbaijan mysteriously decided to exclude the Zangezur issue from their peace treaty negotiations.

    After Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused Armenia of undermining the Zangezur road, Iran issued a stern warning that it will not allow a “Zangezur corridor” through Armenia. Russia quickly patched up its differences with Iran and quieted down the dispute.

    This messy situation could have been avoided if Pashinyan had not suggested the inclusion of the Zangezur road in the 2020 agreement. This is what happens when Prime Minister Pashinyan, rather than solving Armenia’s problems, aggravates them because of his incompetence.

  • Should Pashinyan Go to Baku at Aliyev’s Invitation to Attend an Int’l Conference?

    Should Pashinyan Go to Baku at Aliyev’s Invitation to Attend an Int’l Conference?

    Hikmet Hajiyev, Head of Foreign Policy Department of Pres. Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, announced on July 21 that Armenia was officially invited to the United Nations’ International Conference on Climate Change (COP29) to be held in Baku, Nov. 11-22. Hajiyev said that the invitation was sent by Mukhtar Babayev, Azerbaijan’s Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources, to the Armenian Foreign Ministry. Even though all UN members are automatically invited, Hajiyev made it sound like Azerbaijan was doing a special favor to Armenia by describing the invitation as a “goodwill and inclusive approach in the absence of diplomatic relations between the two countries.” Hajiyev added: “Now is the time for the Armenian authorities to make a decision.”

    Armenian officials have not issued a formal response to the invitation. They have made two evasive comments: The spokeswoman of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said: “such a visit is not planned in the work agenda of the Prime Minister,” and the spokeswoman of the Armenian Foreign Ministry told a journalist: “we will inform you in case the issue is addressed.”

    Baku claims that there will be 70-80,000 tourists visiting Baku on that occasion. Thousands of journalists, delegates of international environmental organizations, high-ranking officials of various governments and dozens of heads of state from around the world are expected to attend the Conference. 198 countries are parties to the Convention on Climate Change.

    On Dec. 7, 2023, the Armenian Prime Minister’s office and the Azerbaijani President’s administration had issued a joint declaration disclosing that in return for Armenia not exercising its veto power on Azerbaijan hosting the Climate conference, Azerbaijan would release 32 Armenian Prisoners of War held in Baku, and Armenia in turn would release two Azeri soldiers who were captured after crossing Armenia’s border and murdering an Armenian citizen. In addition, Azerbaijan agreed to support Armenia’s candidacy to the Eastern Europe Group‘s Bureau of COP29. At the time, I wrote that Pres. Aliyev was so obsessed with holding this prestigious international conference in Baku that Armenia should have insisted that Azerbaijan release all of the Armenian Prisoners of War held in Baku since the 2020 war as well as the eight high-ranking Artsakh officials held since September 2023.

    In recent months, at several international gatherings, Pres. Aliyev has boasted about Azerbaijan hosting the COP29 Conference, attributing that to “the increasing international respect for his country, two and a half month after” its occupation and ethnic cleansing of Artsakh. “Chairing the COP29 and holding this event in Baku is a clear example of the great trust that the international community has in our country. Almost 200 countries unanimously supported our candidacy,” Aliyev bragged.

    Pashinyan will respond to Azerbaijan’s invitation to participate in the COP29 Conference in Baku at a press conference in August, according to the Government Information and Public Relations Department of Armenia.

    Azeri officials have raised the possibility of Pashinyan and Aliyev signing during the November Conference in Baku a preliminary agreement outlining the basic principles of an eventual peace treaty. Hajiyev is touting the idea of “COP Truce,” suspending all hostilities around the world during the conference, similar to the concept of “Olympic Truce” to promote its false image as a peacemaker. At the end of May, Elchin Amirbekov, the Azerbaijani president’s Special Envoy, mentioned that the Conference could be a good opportunity for signing a peace treaty with Armenia.

    During his press conference on May 7, Pashinyan said that Yerevan agrees to sign a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before November. However, the Armenian Foreign Ministry warned on June 19 that “Azerbaijan will do everything possible to abort the process of signing a peace treaty with Armenia in November during the COP29 Summit in Baku in order to unleash a new aggression against the Republic of Armenia.”

    It is not known what Pashinyan will announce in August regarding his possible participation in the Baku Conference in November. However, in my opinion, Pashinyan should avoid falling in the trap set by Aliyev to gain bonus points in front of a worldwide audience at the expense of Armenia by showcasing the attendance of Pashinyan or his representative in the Conference in Baku. This would be a major coup for Aliyev, acting as a peacemaker, while continuing to make regular threats to Armenia and escalating his demands for concessions from Armenia. Furthermore, signing a piece of paper under the guise of a peace treaty will not obstruct Aliyev from any future attacks on Armenia.

    I believe that no Armenian official should consider going to Baku, while Azerbaijan is holding dozens of Armenian Prisoners of War and occupying parts of the Republic of Armenia since 2021. Without Azerbaijan first releasing all of the Armenian prisoners and withdrawing from Armenia, no Armenian official should go to Azerbaijan nor hold any kind of meeting or negotiation with Baku.

    A less desirable alternative would be for Pashinyan or his representative to go to Baku and demand to address the international conference of 196 nations, condemning Azerbaijan’s repeated threats to invade Armenia, castigating its occupation of Artsakh, ethnic cleansing of 120,000 Artsakh Armenians, refusal to allow them to return to their ancestral homeland under international guarantees, not releasing all of the Armenian Prisoners of War, and not withdrawing the Azeri troops from Armenia.

    However, there is a good chance that Azerbaijan may renege on its promise to allow Armenia’s representative to address the conference at the last minute. A much better option for Armenia would be to refuse to attend the conference unless Azerbaijan releases the Armenian Prisoners of War and withdraws its troops from Armenia in advance of the conference.

  • Armenia’s Top Leaders on Vacation: Some Hope They Wouldn’t Come Back

    Armenia’s Top Leaders on Vacation: Some Hope They Wouldn’t Come Back

    Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s office surprisingly announced that he was going on a long vacation from July 15 to August 12. More shockingly, several other officials of Armenia had decided to go on vacation at the same time, leaving the country without its top leadership.

    I would have had no concern if Pashinyan had gone on a one or even two-week long vacation. Everyone needs a break from time to time. But, the top leader of the country going on vacation for almost a month is incredible. I have not heard of the leader of any country in the world having gone on a 29-day vacation.

    Besides the astonishing length of the absence of the Prime Minister from office, I have three other concerns:

    1)    There seems to be no basic understanding that several of the country’s leaders cannot be absent from office at the same time. What if, God forbid, would a war break out or some other serious emergency occur? Normally, when the leader of any country is temporarily absent, his deputy performs his functions — not in Armenia. Several members of the Armenia media reported that the Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan, who is supposed to replace the Prime Minister during his absence, has also gone on vacation for nine days during the same period. Fortunately, there is a second Deputy Prime Minister who will fulfill the duties of Prime Minister. Furthermore, the Speaker of the Parliament, Alen Simonyan, decided to go on vacation for 20 days from July 16 to August 5. He will be replaced by Deputy Speaker Ruben Rubinyan (July 16-22) and Deputy Speaker Hakob Arshakyan (July 23-August 5). Also on vacation are Finance Minister Vahe Hovhannisyan (for 10 days) and Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan (until July 22).

    2)    If the leaders of Switzerland were to be absent from their offices for days, weeks or even months, nothing untoward would happen, since the country is located in a peaceful part of the world. Regrettably, Armenia is located in a precarious region with constant threats from Azerbaijan. Armenia’s leaders have to be constantly on alert and work diligently to solve its myriad problems. Under these circumstances, their going on lengthy and simultaneous vacations is reckless and irresponsible.

    3)    Finally, Pashinyan announced last month that Armenia is ready to sign a peace treaty with Azerbaijan in one month. Why would he then turn around and go on vacation for a month? Shouldn’t he be in his office, if, by a miracle, Pres. Aliyev agreed to sign such a treaty which I believe is not only useless, but also contrary to Armenia’s interests? Aliyev is cleverly stringing along the signing of a peace treaty to extort endless concessions from Armenia!

    Even though the leadership’s wholesale absence entails a major risk for the country, many Armenians are not too concerned. On the contrary, they are happy that the leaders are away from office so they can do less damage to the country’s interests. Some members of the public are hoping that these leaders would remain on permanent vacation and not return to their positions.

    Some of the readers feel that I am too critical of Pashinyan. While it is true that no one is perfect, starting from me, the Prime Minister goes to extensive lengths to make egregious errors and baseless statements which would have been laughable, if they did not have such serious consequences. Hundreds of such examples come to mind. Let us just mention the latest example when the Prime Minister along with his wife attended the UEFA’s Soccer championship game on July 14 in Berlin.

    Pashinyan, obsessed with social media, regularly posts on Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Twitter (X), and YouTube, all of his speeches, meetings, and visits. Unlike other world leaders, he walks around with one or two cell phones in his hand.

    During the soccer match in Berlin, he placed his cell phone in front of him and videotaped, not the match, but his own face, adding a bizarre song to the video by a 31-year-old female American singer known as Tinashe. Wikipedia described the song titled, “Nasty,” as “an understated R&B and rhythmic pop song on which Tinashe ‘rap-sings’ about searching for someone to match her sexual energy, which she alternately calls her ‘freak’ and her ‘nasty’, while also using several double entendres. The song has a ‘robotic’ hook and, in its second verse, she details a sexually charged date night, singing ‘Shotgun, my thighs on the seat, I ain’t got nothin’ underneath, Looks like you’re ’bout to spend the night, Looks like, I’m ’bout to change your life.’”

    Why would the Prime Minister of Armenia add such an inappropriate song to his video that has “Nasty” lyrics, with the word “nasty’ repeated 59 times in the song?

    Surprisingly, Pashinyan’s video along with the song, “Nasty,” was reported by TV channel 5 in Los Angeles. The headline of the segment on TV was: “Pashinyan & wife in Berlin at Euro Soccer Finals, Listening to ‘Nasty’ Song.” The TV channel asked: “What do the 2024 European Championship final, Tinashe and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan have in common?” My answer: Absolutely nothing!

    Channel 5 reported that Pashinyan posted on TikTok a second video showing the victory celebration at the end of the soccer match, once again adding the song “Nasty.” The TV channel stated: “It is not known why he chose the one-time Crescenta Valley High School student’s song as the background music for the two videos. It is also not known how exactly he found the song in the first place.”

    It is almost impossible to explain the Prime Minister’s actions and motives. Maybe, he is looking for a Hollywood gig after he is no longer Prime Minister.

  • Only 13% of Armenians Support Pashinyan; He Lost His Mandate; New Elections Needed

    Only 13% of Armenians Support Pashinyan; He Lost His Mandate; New Elections Needed

    The Gallup International poll conducted in Armenia on July 3-6, 2024, indicated that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s rating has dropped to 13.4% among potential Armenian voters. When he first came to power six years ago, his rating was around 80%.

    When asked: “How do you evaluate the work of Nikol Pashinyan?”

    — 13.4% of the public said that they find his work “completely positive.” This is 4% higher than two months ago in May.

    — 21.7% evaluated his work in July as “rather positive,” up 3% from May.

    — 40.3% rated his work in July as “generally negative,” 1% lower than May.

    — 14.5% rated him in July as “rather negative,” 4% lower than May.

    — 10.1% of the participants said the question was too “difficult to answer.”

    This means that 35.1% of the public rated Pashinyan in July as “positive” and “rather positive,” up from 27.8% in May, whereas the majority of 54.8% rated him “negatively” and “rather negatively” in July, down from 59.7% in May.

    To the question: “If the parliamentary elections were held next Sunday which party or coalition of parties would you vote for?” Here are their answers:

    1)  14.4% for the ruling Civil Contract party.

    2)  3.7% for the Armenia coalition.

    3)  3.5% for the Democracy, Law and Order party.

    4)  2.3% for I Have Honor coalition.

    5)  1.5% for Bakrat Srpazan.

    6)  1.2% for the Prosperous Armenia party.

    7)  0.6% for the Republic party.

    8)  2% for others.

    9)  8.6% for none of them.

    10)  29.6% refused to answer or had difficulty answering.

    11)  32.5% will not vote at all.

    These numbers provide an important insight into the next election. Pashinyan’s ruling party will only get 14.4%, while the other parties, if they form a coalition, will get 14.8% of the vote. For the opposition parties to become the majority in the next Parliament, they need not only to form a coalition, but also try to get votes from the remaining 70.7% who refused to answer or had difficulty answering or will not be voting.

    Regarding the question: “Is Armenia in general moving in the right or wrong direction?” The respondents answered:

    — 15.2% “completely right.”

    — 10.6% “rather right.”

    — 28.5% “generally wrong.”

    — 23.1% “rather wrong.”

    — 22.5% “have difficulty answering.”

    This means that the majority of 51.6% feel that the country is going in the wrong direction. Only 25.8% feel it is going in the right direction. This does not bode well for Pashinyan and his ruling party.

    To the question, should Armenia change its Constitution as Pres. Aliyev had demanded? The public responded:

    — 80.3% said no in July, more than double the 38.1% in January.

    — 11.7% said in July that certain clauses should be changed. In January, 34.2% had said the same thing.

    — 3.3% said in July that a whole new Constitution is necessary. In January, 13.4% said the same thing.

    — 4.7% could not answer in July. In January, 14.4% could not.

    This is a critical issue, since Pashinyan has agreed with Aliyev to change the Constitution, while 80.3% of the public is opposed to it.

    To the question: “How do you evaluate the movement of “Tavush for the sake of Armenia” initiated by the Primate of Tavush, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan?” The public said:

    — 18.3% “completely positive” in July, which is substantially down from 35.1% in May.

    — 15.5% “rather positive” in July, slightly lower than the 17.8% in May.

    — 32.4% “generally negative” in July, which is higher than the 23.5% in May.

    — 14.9% “rather negative” in July, a little higher than the 10% in May.

    — 18.9% could not answer in July. In May, 13.6%.

    The answers indicate a declining trend in the Armenian public’s support for the Archbishop’s movement.

    To the question: “According to you, should Armenia become a member of the European Union (EU)?”

    — 34.2% said, “definitely yes.”

    — 22.5% said, “rather yes.”

    — 19.1% said, “definitely no.”

    — 13.7% said, “rather no.”

    — 10.5% said, they “could not answer the question.”

    This indicates that 56.7% are in favor of Armenia joining the EU, while 32.8% are opposed to it. The majority agrees with Pashinyan. I believe, this is an unrealistic wish on the part of the Armenian public and the Prime Minister, as most of Armenia’s economy is linked to Russia and any interruption in that critical link will have a devastating effect on Armenia’s economy. The pro-EU reaction is mostly due to the Armenian public’s major disappointment with Russia for not coming to the rescue of Armenia militarily. Another important issue is whether the EU will allow Armenia to join it. As we know, Turkey has been trying unsuccessfully to join the EU for decades and Georgia has also been trying to join the EU for years. There will be years’ long wait for Armenia.

    A similar question was asked as to “whether Armenia should leave the [Russia-dominated] Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and start the process of joining the European Union?”

    — 28.8% said, “definitely yes.”

    — 17.3% said, “rather yes.”

    — 21.4% said, “definitely no.”

    — 15.6% said, “rather no.”

    — 16.9% said, they “have difficulty answering the question.”

    This indicates that 46.1% of the public is in favor of leaving the EEU, while 37% are opposed to leaving the EEU.

    The next question: “Whether Armenia should leave the [Russia-affiliated] Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and join NATO?”

    — 44.3% said in July, “Armenia should not be a member of any structure; should be neutral.” 40.3% had given the same answer in February.

    — 16.9% said in July, “Armenia should continue its membership in CSTO.” 28% had given the same answer in February.

    — 29% said in July, “we should aspire to join NATO.” 22.5% had given the same answer in February.

    — 9.8% said in July, they “have difficulty answering the question.” 9.2% had given the same answer in February.

    Not surprisingly, these answers indicate a declining trend in the Armenian public’s interest in being associated with anything related to Russia and an increasing interest in the West. However, wanting to join NATO is an unrealistic wish.

    This latest poll indicates the Armenian public’s continued dissatisfaction with Pashinyan and his political party and the public’s interest in a shift away from Russia towards the West.