By Wally Sarkeesian

Breaking News: Nikol Pashinyan / Նիկոլ Փաշինյան in Panic

Israel’s reported move toward official recognition of the Armenian Genocide has sparked significant discussion. If the Knesset ultimately approves such recognition, it would mark an important development in Israeli-Armenian relations.

Today, the major Turkish newspapers are framing Israel’s move in noticeably different ways depending on their editorial stance.

Hürriyet Daily News (mainstream)

Hürriyet presents the story largely as a diplomatic development. It reports that Israel’s cabinet has approved a proposal to recognize the Armenian Genocide and emphasizes that the move still requires approval by the Knesset. The paper also reiterates Turkey’s longstanding position that the 1915 events occurred during wartime and should not be classified as genocide.

Sabah (pro-government)

Sabah’s coverage focuses on the geopolitical angle. It portrays Israel’s initiative as a political response to deteriorating Israel-Turkey relations rather than a new historical assessment. The paper argues that Israel avoided recognition for decades when relations with Ankara were good and is now using the issue as diplomatic leverage.

Yeni Şafak (strongly pro-government)

Yeni Şafak has taken the strongest line. Its commentary argues that Israel is “politicizing history” and using the Armenian issue to pressure Turkey. Articles also link the move to current tensions over Gaza and broader regional rivalries rather than focusing on the historical debate itself.

Cumhuriyet (opposition, secular)

Cumhuriyet’s reporting is generally more analytical and less nationalistic. While it notes the diplomatic implications for Turkey, it tends to devote more attention to Israel’s political calculations and the historical significance of the decision than pro-government newspapers. It does not abandon Turkey’s official position, but its tone is less confrontational.

Sözcü (opposition nationalist)

Sözcü has emphasized the foreign-policy consequences for Turkey and criticized Israel’s timing. Like most Turkish newspapers, it questions why Israel chose to pursue recognition now after decades of refraining from doing so, suggesting the decision is closely tied to the current breakdown in bilateral relations.

Common themes across most Turkish media

Despite their political differences, several themes appear consistently:

• The move is presented as a consequence of the collapse in Israel-Turkey relations.
• Israel is accused of using the issue for political or diplomatic purposes.
• Turkey’s official position—that the 1915 events do not constitute genocide—is restated.
• Many outlets warn that recognition could further damage relations between Ankara and Jerusalem.

By Wally Sarkeesian

November 9 is set to become a day of mourning in Armenian history — not only for the loss of territory but for the collapse of political accountability at the highest level of the state. The events surrounding the November 2020 war in Nagorno-Karabakh, and the subsequent agreements signed by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, represent a watershed moment in the erosion of Armenian sovereignty and national responsibility. On that day, decisions that would determine the future of Artsakh were made in secrecy, without consultation with Parliament, the foreign ministry, or the Armenian people.

The Historical Context

Nagorno-Karabakh, known to Armenians as Artsakh, has been an inseparable part of Armenian history for centuries. It has been a focal point of cultural, religious, and demographic identity. In the late 20th century, as the Soviet Union dissolved, tensions over Artsakh escalated into full-scale war. For decades, Armenian forces successfully defended the region, establishing a fragile but functioning state apparatus under constant threat.

By 2020, however, the geopolitical landscape had shifted. Azerbaijan, with military support and strategic backing from Turkey, launched a renewed offensive aimed at reclaiming control over Nagorno-Karabakh. While the conflict was undoubtedly challenging on the battlefield, the ultimate outcome was determined less by military might than by political collapse.

Capitulation Behind Closed Doors

According to multiple reports and firsthand accounts from diaspora analysts, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan personally negotiated with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in November 2020. In these negotiations, Pashinyan refused to consult the Armenian Parliament or his own Foreign Minister. Entire swaths of Artsakh — including areas never occupied by Azerbaijani forces — were effectively handed over without resistance.

This departure from historical norms of wartime negotiation shocked both military experts and legal scholars. Traditionally, post-conflict settlements follow the realities on the ground: territories under control by the defending army form the basis for negotiation. In Pashinyan’s case, such principles were disregarded. The surrender of Artsakh was not contingent upon military outcomes but dictated entirely by the unilateral decisions of one leader.

Breaking Institutional Process

The implications of bypassing parliamentary and ministerial consultation are severe. As constitutional scholar Dr. Anahit Sargsyan notes, “Armenia’s system of governance relies on institutional checks to prevent arbitrary decisions with existential consequences. By ignoring these mechanisms, Pashinyan undermined both the rule of law and the nation’s security framework.”

Military strategist Colonel Vahan Petrosian, writing in a diaspora military review, observed: “Even if the Armenian army had been on the verge of losing certain positions, the proper process would have involved staggered withdrawal and negotiated armistice. Instead, a full surrender was executed in secrecy, eroding morale and trust in leadership.”

A Departure from the Laws of War

The November 2020 agreement stands out not merely for what was lost but for how it was lost. In every armed conflict, negotiations for peace or ceasefire usually correlate with control over territory. Pashinyan’s approach discarded that principle entirely. Areas that remained under Armenian defense were handed over; communities and cultural landmarks were abandoned without discussion. As historian Dr. Levon Harutyunyan notes, “What occurred was a political surrender masquerading as a diplomatic settlement. Armenia lost not just land, but its credibility as a sovereign actor.”

The Symbolism of November 9

September 9, therefore, is more than a calendar date; it is a symbol of systemic failure. It represents the day when political accountability was ignored, legal processes were bypassed, and the Armenian people were excluded from decisions determining their survival. The loss of Artsakh, in this framing, was not only military — it was a betrayal of trust.

Diaspora analyst Mariam Avetisyan writes: “This day will resonate across generations. It is a warning that the absence of consultation, oversight, and accountability can cost a nation its heartland, its culture, and its very identity.”

Cultural and Human Consequences

Beyond the political ramifications, the consequences for Armenian society and heritage are profound. Entire communities have been displaced. Religious sites, libraries, and historical landmarks face destruction or repurposing under Azerbaijani control. The forced evacuation of Armenian civilians from Artsakh represents not only a demographic shift but the erasure of centuries of history.

Legal analyst Hovhannes Minasyan emphasizes: “The international community recognizes the rights of populations under occupation and post-conflict transitions. However, Armenia’s failure to assert these rights during negotiations — and Pashinyan’s unilateral signing — has weakened any claim to restitution or future protection.”

Diaspora Response and Historical Memory

The Armenian diaspora has reacted with outrage and despair. Intellectuals, policymakers, and activists emphasize that November 9 must be embedded into the collective memory, not as a day of resignation but as a call for accountability and vigilance. Professor Aram Bedrosian, a diaspora historian, writes: “Memory is a form of resistance. Armenian society must not forget that Artsakh’s loss was political, not inevitable.”

The lessons are clear:

• Concentration of power without oversight can endanger national survival.
• Critical decisions on territorial integrity must include parliamentary, ministerial, and public consultation.
• Leadership devoid of accountability risks surrendering a nation’s future.

Strategic Implications for Armenia

The political surrender of Artsakh also carries long-term strategic consequences. Russia’s mediation, while portrayed as stabilizing, effectively limited Armenia’s autonomy in negotiating borders, military presence, and civilian protections. Azerbaijan, emboldened by international acquiescence, now occupies a stronger geopolitical position. Analysts warn that future Armenian leaders may struggle to reclaim influence unless internal governance and accountability are restored.

Military analyst Colonel Petrosian notes: “Even a well-equipped army cannot compensate for political vulnerability. Armenia must rebuild institutional resilience before considering any future territorial negotiation.”

Lessons for Governance

September 9, therefore, should not only be remembered as a day of loss but as a blueprint for reform. Armenian governance requires:

1. Strict adherence to constitutional procedures in matters of war and peace.
2. Transparent consultation with legislative and ministerial bodies before signing treaties.
3. Public communication to ensure national buy-in for existential decisions.

Failure to institutionalize these lessons risks repeating history — a risk Armenians cannot afford.

Conclusion: Accountability, Memory, and the Future

The loss of Artsakh is both a territorial and moral catastrophe. It is a stark reminder that sovereignty is fragile when leadership concentrates decision-making power and bypasses institutional safeguards. While military defeat was a factor, the decisive loss came from political capitulation — a surrender negotiated in secrecy by Nikol Pashinyan personally, without consultation, without debate, and without consent.

November 9 must remain engraved in Armenian consciousness: not as a symbol of hopelessness, but as a call to action. Political accountability, institutional resilience, and historical memory are the only paths to prevent future tragedies. The Armenian nation must ensure that leadership operates in service of the people — not in isolation, not in secrecy, and never again at the expense of its homeland.

By Wally Sarkeesian

1. Initial Promises (2018–2019)
When Nikol Pashinyan first came to power after the 2018 “Velvet Revolution,” he presented himself as a democrat and a defender of national interests.
He repeatedly stated that he had no right to decide Artsakh’s fate because he was not elected by the people of Artsakh.
He emphasized that Artsakh must be a party to the peace talks and promised that no decision would be made without the will of the Artsakh people.

2. The “Zero Point” Negotiations
Soon after, Pashinyan reversed his position, declaring that negotiations would begin from a “zero point” — effectively discarding years of diplomatic progress and the previous negotiation framework (including the Madrid Principles).
This confused both local and international observers and weakened Armenia’s position in talks.

3. Shifting Rhetoric (2019–2020)
In the National Assembly, Pashinyan began claiming that any solution must be equally acceptable to the peoples of Armenia, Artsakh, and Azerbaijan — a statement that many saw as legitimizing Azerbaijan’s claims and diluting Armenia’s bargaining power.
When asked what exactly was being negotiated, his vague response — “Whatever needs to be negotiated, we negotiate” — reflected growing inconsistency.

4. The 2020 War and Catastrophe
In September 2020, the 44-day war broke out.
Despite warnings, the government failed to prepare the army or secure foreign support.
The war became a disaster: over 4,000 Armenian soldiers were killed, tens of thousands displaced, and large parts of Artsakh were lost.
Many Armenians describe this as a new genocide — with Turkey, Pakistan, Israel, and extremist mercenaries openly supporting Azerbaijan.

5. The November 9, 2020 Ceasefire Agreement
Pashinyan signed the Moscow-brokered deal that ended the war — widely viewed as a capitulation.
Armenia lost Shushi, Hadrut, and most part of Artsakh, while Russian peacekeepers were deployed temporarily.
He announced the deal in the middle of the night without consulting the nation or Parliament.

6. The 2021 Elections and New Promises
During the 2021 snap elections, Pashinyan promised to bring back Shushi and Hadrut and to secure Artsakh’s status.
However, after being reelected, he gradually abandoned these promises — lowering expectations and shifting responsibility.

7. Recognition of Azerbaijan’s “Territorial Integrity” (2022–2023)
At meetings in Brussels and other international forums, Pashinyan officially recognized Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity — including Artsakh.
This statement effectively erased the decades-long struggle of Artsakh Armenians for self-determination and was seen as the final act of surrender.

8. The 2023 Exodus and Aftermath
In September 2023, Azerbaijan launched a final military operation in Artsakh.
Within days, over 150,000 Armenians were forced to flee their homes.
Artsakh ceased to exist as a self-governing entity — a tragic end many blame directly on Pashinyan’s policies and concessions.

Trusting Turks or Azerbaijanis is itself a betrayal of the Armenian nation.

History shows us why: Armenians once lived across what is now called Turkey, the Ottoman Empire, which was originally Armenian lands. Then came the occupation, and we know the result—a systematic genocide that killed 1.5 million Armenians.

In Azerbaijan, too, Armenians once numbered in the hundreds of thousands. They were slaughtered, their homes burned, and just two years ago Artsakh was ethnically cleansed—an entire Armenian community erased before the world’s eyes.

And now we have Nikol Pashinyan—a man whose very identity is under question. No Armenian can clearly say who he is. Is he Armenian? Christian? Muslim? Was he recruited by the Turks? His behavior raises more doubts than answers: he clashes with Armenian leadership, hates Armenia’s own leaders, but smiles warmly with Turks and Azerbaijanis.

It is mind-boggling who this man really is—and yet, blindfolded Armenians follow him while he systematically dismantles the Armenian nation. Artsakh is already lost. If this continues, Armenia itself may be next.

Pashinyan’s Betrayal Dressed as Peace

Armenians were promised peace. Instead, they got surrender.

“Effective leadership, not just military might, defines a nation’s security. For three decades, Armenia’s capable leadership secured Artsakh and its borders, deterring aggression. Yet, a change in leadership in 2018 led to the capitulation of these gains, forcing a challenging peace upon the country.”

Not long ago, the leadership in Yerevan claimed it had no mandate to negotiate over Artsakh. But after the disastrous 2020 war, that promise evaporated. Piece by piece, territory and dignity have been bargained away under the banner of “historic opportunity.” Yet peace never arrived. What arrived instead was silence, concessions, and a deep sense of betrayal.

While Azerbaijan’s leader openly brands Armenians as a “sick society” and parades military strength, Armenia’s foreign ministry stays quiet. This is not diplomacy—it is complacency. Every insult unchallenged only emboldens aggression.

Even worse, some of Armenia’s most successful businessmen—figures who invested heavily in Artsakh’s survival—have found themselves behind bars. Rather than honoring those who supported the homeland, today’s ruling elite treats them as threats. Meanwhile, smiles and handshakes with the adversary send a cruel message: loyalty to power matters more than loyalty to Armenia.

This is not peace. It is submission disguised as strategy. It is collaboration at the expense of sovereignty. And it leaves ordinary Armenians to wonder: if those who defended Artsakh are treated as criminals, who is truly being served?

History is clear—nations that trade dignity for illusions of safety lose both. Armenians deserve better than betrayal dressed up as diplomacy. Real peace cannot be built on silence, scapegoats, and secret deals. It can only come from leaders who defend their people, not deliver them.

Wally Sarkeesian

241 villages, 

13,550 homes (30% of them more than a century old), 

11,450 apartments, 

60 kindergartens, 

15 factories, 

200 cultural houses, 

9 cultural centers, 

23 museums, 

232 schools, 

7 colleges, 

4 universities, and 11 art schools.

Also left behind in Artsakh: 

400 medieval cemeteries, 

385 churches, 

60 monastic complexes, 

2,385 khachkars (stone-crosses), 

5 reservoirs, 

5 canals, 

37 hydroelectric power plants, and 

48 mines. 

All surrendered to Azerbaijan — not through open battle, but through betrayal and the weakness of leadership.

Between September 19 and 29, 120,000 Artsakh Armenians fled their ancestral homeland. This was not just the displacement of a people, but the uprooting of a civilization with millennia of continuous history.

Throughout history, Artsakh had never been emptied of Armenians. Today, for the first time, that rupture has become reality — a wound unprecedented in our nation’s story.

The September 19th & 19th: A Dark Mark on Armenian History Turkish crime repeated

Dates often carry symbolism. For Armenians, two “19ths” stand as wounds carved into the nation’s soul: January 19, 2007 and September 19, 2023.

On January 19, journalist and intellectual Hrant Dink was assassinated in front of the Agos newspaper office in Istanbul. His crime was not violence, nor treason, but truth. He dared to speak openly about the Armenian Genocide, reconciliation, and the need for Turkey to confront its past. For this, he was silenced. His murder was not an act of one fanatic alone — it was the byproduct of an entire system that demonized him, tolerated threats, and cultivated hate.

On September 19, the small Armenian Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) was emptied of its indigenous Armenian population. After months of blockade and starvation, Azerbaijani forces launched a one-day assault. Facing annihilation, Artsakh surrendered, and over 120,000 Armenians were driven from their homes. Ethnic cleansing was completed under the world’s watchful silence.

Two different 19ths, but the same story:

• A people silenced.
• A homeland erased.
• The perpetrator’s crime denied.

For Turkey and Azerbaijan, denial is not an afterthought — it is the strategy itself. Hrant Dink was killed to erase a voice. Artsakh was emptied to erase a nation. Both acts serve one larger purpose: to strip Armenians of truth, land, and identity.

But history records. The 19th is not just a date on the calendar — it is a reminder. A reminder that crimes unpunished repeat themselves. That silence from allies and international organizations only fuels aggressors. That without accountability, justice remains distant.

For Armenians, the 19th is now a symbol of resilience as well as tragedy. To remember Hrant Dink is to keep his voice alive. To remember Artsakh is to keep its people’s right of return alive.

The world may choose to look away. Armenians cannot.
Because the 19th will always stand as proof: denial kills — again and again.

https://gagrule.net/96768-2/