Baku — September 7, 2025
Armenian opposition voices are accusing Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan of failing to respond to what they call increasingly hostile rhetoric from Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev. In recent appearances on RUSARM INFO YouTube channels, political analysts and opposition politicians argued that Yerevan is turning a blind eye to language they see as both inflammatory and strategically dangerous.
The debate reflects a widening divide within Armenia’s political spectrum: while the government pursues a peace agenda and prepares for elections, opposition figures insist that Baku is pursuing a long-term strategy of pressure that requires a tougher response.
Hayrapetyan: Aliyev’s “enemy” rhetoric goes unanswered
Speaking on the RUSARM INFO, analyst Tatevik Hayrapetyan highlighted Aliyev’s August 21 speech, where the Azerbaijani president reportedly used the term “enemy” four times when referring to Armenians. Hayrapetyan also pointed to Aliyev’s description of Armenian society as “sick,” calling it part of a broader narrative of hate.
“This is the continuation of racist and hate-filled propaganda,” she said, arguing that neither Pashinyan nor Armenian state institutions reacted publicly. “The same Aliyev who sat next to Trump and portrayed himself as a dove of peace now uses language of hostility at home. If Armenian authorities were more capable, they would use U.S. mediation to push for removal of such terms.”
Hayrapetyan added that without pressure from Yerevan, it is unlikely Washington will raise the issue with Baku. “The White House will not act on its own if there is no side prompting it,” she noted.
Arzumanyan: Baku still acting “within the logic of war”
National security expert Hrachya Arzumanyan, speaking in the same program, framed Azerbaijan’s policy as a deliberate continuation of wartime logic. “Azerbaijan is not interested in recognizing Armenia as a state. It continues to act within the logic of war, applying military pressure to force Yerevan into concessions,” he said.
According to Arzumanyan, this leaves Armenia facing a dangerous asymmetry: one side speaking the language of peace, the other preparing for further confrontation. “This is Armenia’s problem – to hope for peace where the other side is not ready for peace,” he argued.
The expert linked this dynamic to Armenia’s upcoming elections in 2026. “The government’s main ideological agenda is peace. But every step from Azerbaijan showing that peace is absent undermines Pashinyan’s re-election narrative. That is why the authorities remain silent – they have nothing to say, because all their claims of peace are contradicted by Baku’s actions.”
Khazhakyan: Opposition says government misleads on corridor terms
Davit Khazhakyan, leader of the Enlightened Armenia Party, focused on what he described as Yerevan’s misrepresentation of agreements surrounding transport routes. He accused the government of downplaying the implications of the November 2020 trilateral declaration, particularly the clause on “unimpeded” connections.
“Armenia’s leadership distorts the facts. They once even deleted from the official website the mention of the U.S. president as a witness to the declaration. They mislead society by suggesting there will be border and passport controls, while Aliyev openly claims he achieved an unimpeded corridor,” Khazhakyan said.
He argued that unless the government states clearly that Azerbaijani cargo and passengers will undergo border and passport checks – just as Iranian or Georgian goods do – Armenia risks accepting an arrangement that undermines its sovereignty. “Without such clarity, we are left with deception. The authorities try to present the U.S. as guarantor when in reality it was only a witness.”
Opposition versus government silence
Together, the three opposition figures portray a government unwilling or unable to confront what they see as Baku’s strategy. Their message is consistent: Aliyev’s rhetoric and policies have not shifted, while Pashinyan’s government remains silent to preserve its peace-first election agenda.
Critics argue that this silence is costly. “Every time Aliyev repeats that Armenia surrendered Artsakh, every time he insists there will be no Armenian oversight of corridors, it deepens public doubt in Pashinyan’s narrative,” Arzumanyan said.
For now, the government shows no sign of changing course. Officials in Yerevan continue to emphasize the importance of peace, with the foreign ministry insisting that Armenia’s focus is on long-term normalization. Yet the opposition insists that peace cannot be declared unilaterally – and that ignoring Aliyev’s rhetoric leaves Armenia strategically exposed.
The debate highlights the broader fragility of Armenia’s political landscape. With elections less than a year away, the government faces not only regional pressure but also growing domestic criticism that it is unable to secure Armenian interests against Baku’s assertive stance.
