Turkish Research Center Repeatedly Praises Pashinyan and Criticizes the Diaspora — By Harut Sassounian

By Harut Sassounian

TheCaliforniaCourier.com

The Center for Eurasian Studies (AVIM), a research center based in Ankara, Turkey, covers the Caucasus, the Balkans, Central Asia, Russia, and Iraq. The Center frequently publishes articles supportive of Pashinyan’s government and critical of the Diaspora.

Below are a few articles AVIM published over the past four weeks:

1) “Armenia Caught between Diaspora Ambitions and State Memory” by Aygun Attar, September 14, 2026.

Here is how the author summarized the article: “The Armenian diaspora has historically played a significant role in the formation of modern Armenian political identity and in the internationalization of the Armenian question. In particular, the organized lobbying capacity developed in the United States, France, and the broader European political arena has generated a wide field of activity ranging from keeping the events of 1915 on the international agenda to parliamentary initiatives concerning Türkiye, and from the Karabakh question to political pressure and sanctions-oriented demands directed at Azerbaijan. Yet the geopolitical reality that emerged in the South Caucasus after the Second Karabakh War of 2020 has increasingly exposed a divergence between the historical political paradigm maintained by certain organized diaspora circles and the contemporary state interests of the Republic of Armenia. This article conceptualizes that divergence as the ‘state-bearing diaspora paradox.’ It comparatively examines Armenian-American lobbying surrounding Section 907, parliamentary politics in France, European Parliament resolutions concerning Türkiye and Azerbaijan, and selected examples of Western media framing…. The central argument is that although the historical achievement of the Armenian diaspora lay in internationalizing the Armenian question, the continued reproduction of an unchanged conflict paradigm may now generate diplomatic and economic costs not only for Türkiye and Azerbaijan but also for Armenia itself as Yerevan seeks normalization with both states.”

2) “Two Different Approaches to Armenia’s Political Orientation: Territorial Claims and ‘Real Armenia’” by Tuğçe Tecimer, October 9, 2026.

Here is how the Turkish author reacted to my column: “An article published on September 20, 2026, in ‘The California Courier’ — a publication representing the radical, militant segment of the diaspora — under the headline ‘Pashinyan Makes Anti-Armenian Statements at International Conference in Yerevan,’ harshly criticized the remarks made by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan at the ‘Comprehensive Security & Resilience 2026’ conference held in Yerevan on September 17. Focusing on the peace process Pashinyan is conducting with Azerbaijan, debates regarding constitutional amendments, and his approach to historical issues, the article argued that the policies pursued by the Prime Minister contradict Armenia’s national interests. However, the most noteworthy aspect of the article is not the criticism of Pashinyan’s diplomatic choices, but rather the political vision he articulated regarding Armenia’s future. In particular, the discussion he initiated concerning Mush and Van highlighted the divergence between the discourse on historical rights — prevalent in certain diaspora circles — and Pashinyan’s ‘Real Armenia’ approach. The article’s primary objections center on Pashinyan’s stance regarding constitutional amendments — which are viewed as excessive concessions to Azerbaijan — and his decision to sideline territorial claims. Additionally, the piece highlights an anecdote about a history teacher telling students they must ‘liberate Mush and Van’ when they grow up. The argument advanced through this example is clear: Armenians should not abandon claims to territories they believe were lost in the past, but rather keep alive the possibility that shifting geopolitical conditions could create an opportunity to reclaim these lands.”

3) “Radical Diaspora Criticized by the Armenian Government” by Selenay Erva Yalcin, October 12, 2026.

Here is what Yalcin wrote: “Opposition groups have leveled constant criticism following Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan’s declaration of the ‘Real Armenia’ ideal as official government policy — a vision that prioritizes establishing relations with regional countries based on peace, prosperity, and stability within existing borders, while eschewing historical ambitions. While the primary sources of this criticism within the country are opposition parties and the Church leadership, the external sources are the radical-militant elements of the diaspora known for their anti-peace stance…. As AVİM, we have repeatedly emphasized that the diaspora’s radical and anti-peace stance stems from a malicious approach aimed at undermining the South Caucasus region, the Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty process, and the Turkey-Armenia normalization process.”

4) “Following Pashinyan’s New York Engagements: Tensions Rise Between the Diaspora and the Armenian Government,” by Hazel Cagan Elbir, October 15, 2026.

Here is how the author reacted to my column: “Nikol Pashinyan’s visit to New York in September 2026 — beyond his address to the UN General Assembly — has brought the structural tensions between the Armenian diaspora and the government in Yerevan back into the spotlight. An article by Harut Sassounian, published in ‘The California Courier’ and ‘The Armenian Weekly’ — titled ‘Did Pashinyan Come to NY to Address the UN or Split up Armenian University Students?’ — offers a concrete example of this friction. According to Sassounian, rather than engaging in an open dialogue with the broader Armenian community, Pashinyan held a closed-door meeting with a limited number of students belonging to the All-Armenian Student Association (All-ASA); this has been interpreted as a selective attempt to sow division within the diaspora. The core argument of the piece is that the rift between the diaspora and the government is not narrowing; rather, the sense of opposition is deepening.”

The biggest mistake Azeri and Turkish analysts and their government leaders repeatedly make, often inadvertently, is that the more they praise and support Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, the more they reinforce the impression that his policies favor Azerbaijan and Turkey, not Armenia. Nothing better demonstrates that Pashinyan’s positions serve the interests of Armenia’s adversaries.