Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan committed, last week, the sin of attacking the clergy of the Armenian Apostolic Church and his domestic political opponents before the European Parliament. Regardless of internal disputes, it is unacceptable for the head of the Armenian government to disparage his people to a foreign audience. He should not disseminate outside of Armenia his feuds with local opponents.
Pashinyan began his remarks in Strasbourg on March 11 by praising himself for making “such changes in Armenia and in the South Caucasus in general, which have a century-long, if not a millennium-long significance.” In reality, his constant concessions to Aliyev and Erdogan have brought Armenia to its knees.
He then spoke of a non-existent “complete peace” with Azerbaijan, well before any peace treaty was signed.
Pashinyan repeated another false claim about a road crossing Armenia, linking Eastern Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan. This so-called “Trump Path” (TRIPP) was included in the memorandum signed on August 8 at the White House by Pashinyan, Aliyev, and Trump. The memorandum described TRIPP as an “unobstructed” path through Armenia which was done at the demand of Aliyev, who calls this road a “corridor,” implying that the Armenian territory it crosses belongs to Azerbaijan.
Although the Prime Minister is harming the country, he portrayed himself as Armenia’s savior, claiming that “in the months of March-April 2024 we had reached the brink of Armenian statehood, and if in April 2024 we had not made a decision to launch the demarcation process with Azerbaijan, the Republic of Armenia would today not be an independent state, but at most a territory under foreign rule.” This claim is delusional and detached from reality.
Pashinyan then claimed, “And how did we solve the problem? We talked to our employer, the people.” In fact, since promising to consult the public in spring 2018, Pashinyan has never sought the people’s opinion. He makes all governmental decisions alone, bypassing the government’s ministers, Parliament, and the President. The country has become a one-man show — a de facto dictatorship.
Pashinyan denied “that the Armenian government is restricting freedom of conscience, that a dictatorship is being established in Armenia, that there are political prisoners in Armenia.” All three statements are facts, despite his denials. He blamed the “de facto head of our church…, the emissaries of the clergy, and representatives of certain lobbying organizations affiliated with them.” Actually, the clergy and opposition groups are attempting to make a last-ditch effort to save the country from his destructive policies.
Ironically, Pashinyan speaks of the rule of law while violating just about every law as well as the constitution by meddling in the Church’s internal affairs. He wants to decide who should be the head of the Armenian Apostolic Church and what the clergy can say in their sermons. He has accused clergy members of being foreign agents, without a shred of evidence. If true, the government would have taken legal action.
Near the end of his 26-minute speech, Pashinyan referred to “Karabagh” Armenians disparagingly, claiming that they are being given “false hopes.” Contrary to his defeatism, Artsakh Armenians hope to return to their homeland when circumstances allow. He also asserted that Artsakh Armenians “must receive Republic of Armenia citizenship,” despite being citizens of Armenia and possessing passports of the Republic of Armenia. Pashinyan is rejecting their Armenian citizenship to prevent them from voting against him in next June’s parliamentary elections.
To deflect from his failure to secure the release of the Artsakh leaders held in Baku, he cited four Armenian prisoners released in January by Azerbaijan. He did not disclose that they were exchanged for two Syrian Jihadist mercenaries who had been serving life sentences in Armenia after their capture in the 2020 war, while fighting for Azerbaijan.
In 2019, when Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan addressed the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), I wrote a commentary commending him for his speech and particularly his spontaneous answers to members’ questions. My commentary was titled, “Pashinyan passes first political test in the international arena.”
A few days later, Pashinyan shared my commentary on his Facebook page, after adding the following introductory note: “I am happy that one of the most prestigious newspapers of the Diaspora, ‘The California Courier,’ has appreciated in this way my speech at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).” His post received 3,900 likes, 181 comments, and 195 shares.
Months later, when I visited Armenia, the Prime Minister received me in his office. During our hour-long meeting, we discussed the critical issues facing Armenia, as I have done with all previous leaders of Armenia.
Given Pashinyan’s zero tolerance for criticism, I doubt he will share my new commentary on his Facebook page, let alone express his appreciation.
AP reported that the Israeli strike hit an apartment in the Nabaa neighborhood, leaving it engulfed in flames. Nabaa, on Beirut’s northern outskirts within the densely populated Burj Hammoud district, is home to a sizable Armenian community.
No casualties were immediately reported.
Local authorities reported that Israeli airstrikes had earlier targeted the southwestern suburbs of Beirut, killing one person in Jnah.
Israel says it is targeting Hezbollah members and infrastructure.
Israel began a military campaign targeting Hezbollah after the U.S. and Israel launched their war on Iran, which prompted Hezbollah to target Israel. Lebanese authorities say that nearly 690 people have been killed in the attacks.
We, the undersigned, express deep concern over recent and troubling developments at the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute (AGMI) in Yerevan. On March 11, 2026, Dr. Edita Gzoyan, one of the most outstanding and dedicated directors in the history of the institute, submitted her resignation — reportedly under pressure from the government rather than by free choice.
Dr. Gzoyan elevated the AGMI to international academic prominence. Under her leadership, the institute expanded its archival collections, organized key symposia and conferences, and produced scholarly works that significantly advanced genocide studies worldwide. She has been a tireless advocate for rigorous historical research on the Armenian Genocide and related atrocities against Armenians — work that has strengthened global understanding of past injustices and supported the cause of historical truth.
What makes her forced departure particularly alarming is its timing and context. Just weeks earlier, Dr. Gzoyan personally guided U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance during his visit to the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial Complex. She highlighted not only the genocide of 1915 but also later massacres of Armenians in Sumgait, Kirovabad, and Baku, underscoring the historical continuity of anti-Armenian violence in the region. She also presented Vice President Vance with scholarly works on the Armenian Genocide and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict — essential context for understanding Armenia’s history and contemporary challenges. On March 12, responding to a journalist’s question regarding the forced resignation of Dr. Edita Gzoyan, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said: “I was the one who asked the director of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute to submit a resignation letter; it was done on my instruction. I considered giving a book about Artsakh to Vance to be a provocative act that goes against the Government’s policy.”
The sequence of events indicates a broader and deeply troubling pattern: the silencing of independent academic voices in favor of political convenience. There is every reason to believe that this is less about museum administration and more about repositioning AGMI to align its work with geopolitical priorities — especially a desire to avoid honest discussion of atrocities related to Azerbaijan amid ongoing normalization efforts.
The Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute is not merely a tourist site. It is a center of historical memory and scholarship — a bulwark against denial and distortion. Its leadership should be protected from political interference, not subjected to it. Dr. Gzoyan’s forced exit sends a chilling message to academics and historians everywhere: that rigorous inquiry and truthful remembrance can be displaced for diplomatic comfort.
All of us have been actively engaged with AGMI in numerous meaningful capacities — participating in its conferences, serving on the editorial board of the International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies and on the academic board, collaborating with AGMI staff on joint scholarly initiatives, and contributing to the field through the publication of academic articles and books. Gzoyan has played a key role in involving us in AGMI’s activities through her creative vision and outstanding scholarship, helping shape the Institute’s future.
We believe that any attempt to remove Dr. Gzoyan from the directorship of the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute (AGMI) would seriously jeopardize the Institute’s future and undermine its standing within the international scholarly community. Such a decision would not only disrupt the institute’s ongoing work but would also send a deeply troubling signal to leading scholars of genocide studies worldwide, discouraging them from collaborating with AGMI and weakening the global academic partnerships that are essential to its mission.
For these reasons, we strongly urge the Armenian government to refrain from interfering in the leadership of the Institute. We call on the authorities to respect the independence of AGMI and to ensure that Dr. Gzoyan is allowed to continue her work without political pressure or intervention. Protecting the Institute’s autonomy and leadership is critical for preserving its credibility, safeguarding its scholarly mission and maintaining the trust of the international academic community. We believe that directorship of the AGMI should be based on the qualities of the individual as a scholar and administrator and not the political expedience of any particular administration.
AGMI staff and board members have expressed their full confidence in Dr. Gzoyan’s exceptional leadership. We firmly demand that Dr. Gzoyan be reinstated immediately and allowed to continue the outstanding work she has been leading.
Prof. Bedross Der Matossian, professor of history, Hymen Rosenberg Professor in Judaic Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Prof. Elyse Semerdjian, Robert Aram, Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marian Mugar Chair of Armenian Genocide studies at the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Clark University.
Prof. Armen Marsoobian, professor of philosophy, Southern Connecticut State University
Prof. Keith Watenpaugh, professor of human rights studies, University of California, Davis
Prof. Melanie Schulze Tanielian, associate professor of history, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Dr. Simon Maghakyan, associate member of the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Oxford
Dr. Boris Adjemian, Director of Bibliothèque Nubar de l’UGAB
Marc Mamigonian, Director of Academic Affairs, National Association for Armenian Genocide and Research (NAASR)
Prof. Vahé Tachjian, Houshamadyan, Berlin / Ara Hrechdakian Chair of Armenian Studies at Saint Joseph University of Beirut
Prof. Houri Berberian, professor of history, Meghrouni Family Presidential Chair in Armenian Studies University of California, Irvine
Prof. Henry Theriault, Ph.D., Vice-Chair, Board of Directors, National Association for Armenian Studies and Research, and Co-Editor, Genocide Studies International
Prof. Ronald Grigor Suny, William H. Sewell Jr. Distinguished University professor of history emeritus, The University of Michigan; Professor of Political Science and History emeritus, The University of Chicago
Prof. Barlow Der Mugrdechian, Haig and Isabel Berberian Coordinator of Armenian Studies, California State University, Fresno
Prof. Lori Khatchadourian, associate professor, Departments of Near Eastern Studies & Anthropology, Cornell University
Dr. Hilmar Kaiser, Universität Bern
Michael Bobelian, adjunct professor at Columbia University and Baruch College
Prof. A. Dirk Moses, Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the City College of New York
Prof. Hervè Georgelin, assistant professor, National University of Athens, Greece
Gregory Aftandilian, Senior Professorial Lecture, American University, Washington, D.C.
Prof. Julien Zarifian, professor of U.S. history, University of Poitiers, France
Prof. Fatma Müge Göçek, professor of sociology, University of Michigan
Prof. David Gaunt, emeritus professor of history, Södertörn University, Stockholm, Sweden
Prof. Tessa Hofmann, formerly Freie Universität Berlin, Germany, Institute for Eastern European Studies
Dr. Talar Chahinian, Continuing Lecturer in Armenian Studies, University of California, Irvine
Panarmenian.net
Several members of the Supreme Spiritual Council have received notices from Armenia’s Investigative Committee ordering them to appear for questioning.
According to Aysor.am, those summoned include Bishop Hovnan Hakobyan, primate of the Gugark Diocese; Bishop Makar Hakobyan, primate of the Syunik Diocese; Archbishop Haykazun Najaryan; and Bishop Mushegh Babayan.
Lawyer Armine Fanyan said the clergy were called to the Investigative Committee within the framework of the same criminal case as before — allegedly obstructing the enforcement of a court decision.
The Investigative Committee declined to comment on the matter.
“We do not comment,” the committee’s spokesperson told the media.
On March 12, the lay members of the Supreme Spiritual Council had also been summoned to the Investigative Committee.
Currently, six bishops and one priest from the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin hold the status of defendants in the case.
They are accused of obstructing the enforcement of a court ruling that requires the reinstatement of Arman Saroyan as primate of the Masis Diocese.
Earlier, the Investigative Committee had summoned Bishops Makar, Hovnan, Nathan, Haykazun, Mushegh and Vahan, as well as Father Movses.
Armenia is approaching what may become one of the most consequential electoral cycles since the political transformation that followed the 2018 Velvet Revolution.
The parliamentary elections scheduled for June 7, 2026, will take place amid continued security uncertainty, shifting geopolitical alignments, and unresolved debates over governance reform, foreign policy orientation, and national identity. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s ruling party is expected to seek reelection, while opposition forces, some connected to established political figures from earlier administrations and others representing newer critical voices, are preparing to challenge the government and offer alternative approaches.
Although electoral outcomes will ultimately be determined by voters physically present within Armenia, the country’s vast diaspora, numbering several times the domestic population, remains a powerful political stakeholder. Despite their exclusion from formal participation at the ballot box, diaspora communities continue to shape the national conversation through media, advocacy, fundraising, and transnational networks, amplifying debates over the country’s direction and policies.
The Armenian diaspora, estimated at five to seven million people, significantly exceeds Armenia’s domestic population of roughly three million. Large communities in Russia, the United States, France, and the Middle East operate within distinct political and media environments. These contexts shape how diaspora Armenians interpret developments in Armenia and how they seek to influence them. Diaspora engagement has historically taken the form of remittances, philanthropy, lobbying, and participation in transnational media networks. Following the 2020 war and the 2023 displacement of Armenians from Nagorno Karabakh, diaspora mobilization intensified, often in explicitly political terms.
Under Armenia’s current electoral framework, citizens abroad cannot vote. The law requires physical presence in Armenia on election day. Policymakers have historically justified this restriction by citing administrative feasibility, verification challenges, and security risks associated with overseas or electronic voting. Critics argue that the exclusion of citizens abroad creates a democratic deficit, particularly given that more ethnic Armenians live outside the country than within it.
The absence of enfranchisement has not rendered the diaspora politically neutral. Instead, it has redirected political engagement into informal but consequential channels. Diaspora actors operate through media ecosystems, fundraising networks, protest mobilization, and foreign policy advocacy. These arenas are often structured around well-established institutions with longstanding ideological identities and transnational reach.
The 2021 parliamentary elections illustrate this dynamic. In the weeks preceding the June 20 snap vote, nearly forty-seven diaspora organizations issued a coordinated public endorsement urging support for the opposition Armenia Alliance (founded in 2021 and led by former President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan). Although diaspora groups do not participate directly in elections, the episode demonstrated their willingness to articulate explicit political preferences and intervene in Armenia’s domestic debate from abroad. It also highlighted the role of highly organized networks in shaping diaspora messaging.
Diaspora-run media platforms reinforce this influence. Publications such as The Armenian Weekly, Zartonk Media, and Asbarez in the United States, Nouvelles d’Arménie Magazine in France, and Yerkramas in Russia serve as hubs for commentary and mobilization. Their coverage frequently circulates inside Armenia, especially during politically sensitive periods. Many of these outlets have given substantial space to criticism of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s post-war security policies, negotiation strategy with Azerbaijan, and broader geopolitical positioning.
Organized political structures amplify this ecosystem. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation maintains a uniquely transnational presence. Domestically, it holds parliamentary representation as part of the opposition Armenia Alliance. Internationally, it operates one of the most extensive Armenian organizational networks in the world, including youth federations, educational institutions, cultural associations, and advocacy arms across North America, Europe, Russia, and the Middle East. This dual structure enables it to function simultaneously as a domestic parliamentary actor and as a global mobilizing force. During periods of political crisis, ARF-affiliated structures abroad have articulated positions critical of the government’s territorial negotiations and national security approach, reinforcing opposition narratives through coordinated messaging.
In the United States, the Armenian National Committee of America remains one of the most prominent Armenian-American advocacy organizations. It does not participate directly in Armenian elections, but it shapes U.S. policy toward Armenia and regional security issues. Its campaigns often intersect with Armenia’s domestic political debates. Since 2020, ANCA has issued statements critical of aspects of the Armenian government’s negotiation process while pressing U.S. lawmakers on humanitarian assistance, sanctions enforcement, and security support.
An individual affiliated with ANCA, who requested anonymity, explained that their focus ahead of the 2026 elections will not be direct intervention in Armenian party politics but rather public awareness and advocacy. “Our responsibility is to inform and mobilize the Armenian American community about what is at stake,” the interlocutor stated. “Many of us are deeply dissatisfied with the government’s recent actions, especially on security issues. We cannot vote, but we can shape opinion, advocate in Washington, and ensure that policymakers understand the concerns of our community.” The comment reflects a broader pattern of diaspora engagement that emphasizes influence through information and foreign policy advocacy rather than formal electoral participation.
Comparative experience across the post-Soviet space underscores that diaspora enfranchisement is politically consequential. Moldova has expanded overseas voting through embassy based polling stations, and turnout from abroad has at times played a decisive role, often favoring reformist and pro-European platforms. Ukraine’s foreign ministry has been working on mechanisms to enable citizens abroad to vote in future elections once martial law is lifted, including discussions about digital voting systems. Georgia, by contrast, has moved to restrict overseas voting mechanisms and eliminate certain polling arrangements abroad, citing concerns about electoral vulnerability and foreign influence. Critics argue that these measures disproportionately affect migrant voters. These cases demonstrate that decisions about diaspora voting are rarely technical. They reflect broader struggles over legitimacy, political control, and national identity.
Armenia’s approach has so far favored restriction. Yet this does not shield domestic politics from diaspora influence. Instead, it produces a paradox. A globally dispersed population lacks ballots but retains the capacity to shape discourse, mobilize resources, and influence foreign governments whose policies affect Armenia directly. Political parties inside Armenia increasingly calibrate their messaging with diaspora narratives in mind, particularly on questions of security, sovereignty, and geopolitical alignment.
As Armenia approaches the 2026 parliamentary elections, the diaspora will remain politically engaged but institutionally excluded. Its influence will be measured not in votes cast but in narratives amplified, funds mobilized, advocacy campaigns launched, and international partnerships shaped. Whether Armenia eventually adopts an overseas voting mechanism or maintains its current framework, the relationship between the state and its global nation will remain central to the country’s democratic trajectory. The Armenian diaspora may not vote in 2026. It will nonetheless participate in shaping the political environment in which those votes are cast.
Unknown individuals attempted a phishing attack against NGOs in Armenia. They sent emails from an address resembling that of the ruling party. The messages appeared to come from a representative of the Civil Contract party.
|
|
representatives. They also targeted authors of analytical articles that criticise Russia’s policies. The attack also targeted the Regional Center for Democracy and Security, which he heads.
This is everything known at the time of publication. Journalists are seeking comment.
About the email sent in the name of a ruling party representative
The attackers sent the fake email in the name of Maria Karapetyan, a member of the ruling party. Civil society representatives who reported the possible attack noted that:
- The cyber fraudsters used the domain civilcontact.am and created fake email addresses.
- The text of the email contained numerous grammatical mistakes.
- The message was written in Armenian, but the party name “Civil Contract” appeared in English.
NGO representatives contacted information security experts and the cyber police. The authorities have already blocked access to the fraudulent website civilcontact.am.
“An obvious hybrid attack”
“A group of fraudsters registered a domain that closely resembled the domain of the Civil Contract party and misled recipients. The cyber criminals used it to send emails and tried to obtain people’s data and email addresses,” said ruling party member Vaagn Aleksanyan.
According to him, not only civil society representatives received such emails. Some party members also received them.
“As far as I understand, the goal was to collect data. The message included various questions, a kind of Google form. The attackers attached it to the email as a questionnaire. The recipient had to fill it out. They may have tried to gain access to email passwords this way,” he explained.
Aleksanyan believes such attacks will become more frequent ahead of the parliamentary elections. The country will hold them on 7 June.
In this context, he also referred to an investigation into a printed newspaper distributed on the streets of Yerevan. Investigative journalists found that despite its American symbolism, the paper had been printed in Russia.
“At the same time, disinformation about a supposed shooting in Syunik spread online. It is obvious that we are dealing with a hybrid attack,” the ruling party member said.
One of the local television channels found copies of a newspaper called Wyoming Star in several districts of Yerevan. Distributors hand it out for free, mainly in the city center. The editor of the 12-page newspaper, published in Armenian and English, remains unknown. The articles carry no bylines. All of the paper’s materials criticize Armenia’s current authorities.
Journalists found that printers produce the newspaper in Russia and then bring it to Armenia. The last page states that private entrepreneur Shukuryan Vanik Volodyaevich publishes the paper. However, the Armenian state register of legal entities does not list him. Shukuryan told journalists that he does not personally know the owner or editor of Wyoming Star. People he “cooperates with” know them.
“No shootings or explosions occurred on Armenian territory. Certain groups circulate articles with manipulative headlines and try to create unacceptable tension among the population,” ministry spokesperson Aram Torosyan said.
Information security expert Artur Papyan believes:
“Either Azerbaijanis or Russians carry out major cyberattacks in Armenia. When we see that attackers target Armenia and the digital trace links to Ukrainian infrastructure, we can confidently assume that Russians are behind it.
The latest phishing attack aimed to gain access to the Google accounts of prominent civil society representatives and government officials. Why? Because for many people their Google accounts link to backup copies of phone contacts and to WhatsApp.
Even if all official or work correspondence takes place elsewhere, access to these shared files can still have significant value. It can also provide important intelligence.
Attempts to gain access to Google accounts remain one of the most common methods. People need to improve their level of digital security and remain vigilant about suspicious messages.
People who hold important or sensitive information should ideally use Google Advanced Protection. This especially applies in the context of Armenia’s European integration and democratic values.
For example, when I tried to follow the link mentioned in the email, Google immediately stopped me and warned that it was very dangerous.”
commentary,
—