During the meeting, Pashinyan suggested that the long-standing accusations of the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 may have been fabricated and that the topic itself was promoted by Moscow during the Cold War era.
“How is it that the narrative of the Armenian ‘genocide’ did not exist in 1939? Why did it emerge in 1950? Why did this happen? Should we try to understand this or not? Should we address these topics or not? Are we in control of our identity or not? These are questions we must discuss. These are fundamental issues we need to understand in order to solve these problems. We need to understand our history, our identity,” Pashinyan stated.
For the first time, an Armenian leader explicitly suggested that the topic of “genocide” was utilized by Moscow as a geopolitical tool following World War II and the onset of the Cold War, after Turkey joined the Western bloc. In other words, the Soviet Union weaponized this ideological narrative against Kemalist Turkey.
This is not the first time Pashinyan has touched on the subject of “genocide” in ways that deviate from the traditional national narrative. In April 2024, during his address marking the anniversary of the 1915 events, he referred to the tragedy as the “Great Massacre,” a term historically used by those who avoided or denied the use of the term “genocide,” including U.S. presidents.
Moreover, Pashinyan argued that the roots of the 1915 tragedy lay in false promises made to Armenians and their misplaced expectations.
He specifically noted: “During World War I, a massive tragedy occurred, and the Armenian people—lacking statehood, having lost it centuries ago, and forgetting the traditions of governance—became victims of geopolitical intrigues and false promises. Above all, they lacked the political wisdom to understand the world and its rules.”
This statement strongly implies that Armenians, as subjects of the Ottoman Empire, believed the deceptive promises of Tsarist Russia and, by taking up arms, allowed themselves to be used as pawns in geopolitical schemes.
Pashinyan also emphasized that modern-day Turkey bears no historical responsibility for these events.
The Prime Minister’s remarks in Zurich, where he elaborated on his theories about the development of the “genocidal narrative” in Moscow’s political laboratories, are seen as part of his broader efforts to normalize relations with Ankara. Since 2021, Armenia has sought to establish relations with Turkey without preconditions, including recognition of the “genocide” or discussing it in any form. Pashinyan’s efforts have been met with harsh criticism from the pro-Russian opposition.
Former Armenian Foreign Minister and diaspora representative Vartan Oskanian expressed shock at Pashinyan’s statements in Zurich. He argued that the Prime Minister’s remarks about the need to “understand what happened and why” align with “Turkish denialist propaganda.”
“Pashinyan’s statements are a sinister continuation of the Turkish agenda. They cast doubt on historical events and sow division among Armenians both in Armenia and abroad,” Oskanian declared, calling the speech an act of betrayal that cannot be ignored.
The Dashnaktsutyun Party also condemned Pashinyan’s words, describing them as a “betrayal and an insult to the memory of the genocide victims.” The party argued that recognition of the genocide is a part of the “strategic interests” of the Armenian people and state, while the current government is pursuing a hostile policy on the matter.
Opposition MP Tigran Abrahamyan labeled Pashinyan’s speech as part of a “plan by Turkey and Azerbaijan to undermine the foundations of Armenian statehood,” calling for public resistance against these “plans.”
The Kremlin-aligned Union of Armenians of Russia issued a statement accusing Pashinyan of “casting doubt on the proven fact of genocide.” The organization emphasized that the Prime Minister deliberately made these remarks in Switzerland, where denial of the Armenian “genocide” is a criminal offense.
Lawyer Ashot Simonyan called for criminal charges to be filed against Pashinyan for his statements.
In official and political circles in Turkey, there has been no comment on Pashinyan’s speech. Any overt support for Pashinyan in Turkey, especially on such a sensitive issue for Armenians, could undermine the Armenian ruling party’s standing with its public.
However, Pashinyan’s bold remarks have not gone unnoticed in Ankara. The Erdogan government reportedly supports Pashinyan’s determination to sign a peace treaty with Azerbaijan and resolve historical disputes with Turkey once and for all.
Nonetheless, Erdogan’s policies remain closely aligned with Baku. Turkey is unlikely to proceed with normalization until Armenia and Azerbaijan sign a peace agreement.
Farhad Mammadov
Translated from haqqin.az
