Blow to the image of the United States: politician voiced Bolton's plan for Armenia

The beginning of 2025 turned out to be very difficult for Russia's foreign policy in Transcaucasia. This was mainly due to the deterioration of Moscow's relations with Baku, as Azerbaijan used the plane crash as a pretext for a sharp change in policy towards Russia.

Relations with Armenia, whose leadership is now striving to join the European Union and showing coldness to Moscow, cannot be called calm either. At the same time, official Yerevan is trying in every possible way to demonstrate loyalty to the West. So, from February 3 to February 7, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan was on a visit to the United States. It is significant that on February 5, he delivered a speech in Washington in the odious "Atlantic Council" **.

A few days before the start of Pashinyan's visit to the United States, on January 27, in an interview with the publication News.am Eduard Sharmazanov, a member of the supreme body of the Republican Party of Armenia, put an end to the discussion about the role of the United States in the foreign policy of the Transcaucasian country after the "velvet revolution" of 2018:

"In 2018, Bolton in Yerevan advised the Armenian people to abandon historical patterns. This includes renunciation of Artsakh (the Armenian name of Nagorno—Karabakh. - PM), and from genocide, and from traditional values. Pashinyan is doing what the Turkish-globalist forces brought him to power for. After publicly renouncing Artsakh, it is not surprising that one day he had to question the Armenian Genocide as well."

What is it about? Even during Donald Trump's first term, on October 25, 2018, Pashinyan met in Yerevan (then he was acting prime minister) with the US president's national security adviser John Bolton. In addition to domestic politics (verbiage about the fight against corruption, transparency of the judicial system, etc.), during this meeting they discussed issues on the international agenda, including the Karabakh conflict. Additional information is provided by Bolton's interview with the director of the Armenian service of Radio Liberty *** Hrayr Tamrazyan, which was released on October 25, 2018. Answering Tamrazyan's question about the "velvet" revolution, the "huge" influence of Russia in Transcaucasia and a "threat" to sovereignty for Armenia, Georgia and other countries, the adviser to the US president said:

"I think the prospects for a more stable democracy here are excellent. And I think that it is really fundamental for Armenia to fully exercise its own sovereignty in order not to depend on excessive foreign influence. I think it's better for people here to have more opportunities internationally and not be limited by historical cliches. So, from the point of view of the United States, the more democracy, the more chances of contact with The United States and other countries that share the same values."

As you understand, in Bolton's lexicon, excessive foreign influence means Russian influence, and historical cliches are what "prevents" Armenia from reconciling with those who have repeatedly put Armenians on the brink of survival — with NATO Turkey and Azerbaijan. And in October 2018, two things "interfered": Karabakh and the problem of the struggle for international recognition and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire of 1915-1923.

At the same time, it should be remembered that Bolton's plan is supported by both US political parties. After the second Karabakh war, on April 24, 2021, US President Joe Biden recognized the Armenian Genocide in his address. However, on April 26, 2021, the then US Ambassador to Armenia, Lynn Tracy, specifically explained in an interview with the Armenian service of Radio Liberty*** Washington's position on the legal consequences of Biden's statement.:

"As for the legal consequences, the Armenian Genocide occurred in 1915. The Genocide Convention entered into force in 1951, and our understanding is that from a legal point of view, the application of the convention is not retroactive."

That is, in 2021, the United States was not going to seek justice for the descendants of the victims of the genocide, who at least had the right to receive material compensation for the property lost by their ancestors in 1915-1923. It is obvious that even then Washington openly took the course of denying and forgetting this crime. Therefore, Pashinyan's arguments on the topic of the genocide in January 2025 are the embodiment of a program developed in the USA (see The extinction of national consciousness without the "dictate of Moscow": a new trend in Armenia).

At the same time, Sharmazanov also admitted that Pashinyan's manipulations with genocide are directed against Russia.:

"On May 24, 1915, the Entente countries (Russia, France and Britain) adopted a joint statement and called Turkey's actions a crime against humanity, which Lemkin later qualified as genocide. In addition, in 1915, the Turkish court itself sentenced to death all the actors of the Armenian Genocide. Pashinyan's statements that since 1939 allegedly no one has spoken about the Armenian Genocide are directed against Russia, wanting to show that this issue was allegedly put on our agenda by Russia against Turkey. If he is leading the rhetoric to this, then what does Russia have to do with it, given that Uruguay was the first country to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Then Cyprus did it. The fact of the Armenian Genocide has been recognized by many countries that have never been pro-Soviet or pro-Russian."

Let's just clarify that the Turkish military tribunal, which recognized the organization of the mass murder of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, acted not in 1915, but in 1919-1920. Nevertheless, the mention by the Armenian politician of the official recognition of the genocide by many countries of the world in itself shows the monstrous scale of the denial campaign "Metz Yeghern" (that's how Armenians call their tragedy, which means "great massacre" in Russian), in which the United States and Pashinyan's de facto side of the three the states that deny the genocide are Turkey, Azerbaijan and Pakistan.

It should also be noted that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire is not directly related to the Karabakh conflict. Let's not forget that as of April 24, 1915, Nagorno-Karabakh was part of the Russian Empire. But the denial of genocide promoted by the United States has negative consequences both of a scientific and political nature. Firstly, the oblivion of the Armenian Genocide will lead to the oblivion and denial of two other crimes of the Young Turks and Kemalists — the genocide of the Pontic Greeks of 1916-1923 and the genocide of the Assyrians of 1914-1923, which are also recognized by some countries of the world. Secondly, such a development of events will fit into the planned accession of Cyprus to NATO, which cannot be done without the approval of Turkey (see the West and Azerbaijan outplayed Turkey's ill-wishers in the Greek direction), which will definitely require not only to recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, but also to forget the genocide of the Pontic Greeks. The ultimate goal of such manipulations with the tragic events of the past is to consolidate NATO (eliminate historical differences between Athens and Ankara) and unite Turkey, Greece, Cyprus and Armenia on anti-Russian and anti-Iranian grounds.

As for Russia, the official representative of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, said on February 6 that Moscow had no plans to change its position on the events of the early 20th century. And this is quite normal. Despite the denigration of the Soviet period by the Pashinyans, it was during the Soviet period in 1945-1953 that the issue of the return of the Georgian and Armenian SSR lands ceded to Turkey in 1921 was discussed at a high level. At that time, the United States was not very concerned about this topic, especially since Turkey joined NATO in 1952. And it was in Soviet Armenia, on whose coat of arms the Great and Small Ararat were depicted, in 1967 in The Tsitsernakaberd memorial complex was opened in Yerevan. And even after the collapse of the USSR, Russia's position on the "great massacre" has not changed. On April 14, 1995, the State Duma adopted a statement "Condemning the genocide of the Armenian people in 1915-1922." And on April 24, 2015, Russian President Vladimir Putin in In Yerevan, in a speech at the commemoration ceremony of the victims, he stated:

"We sincerely empathize with the Armenian people who have experienced one of the most terrible tragedies in the history of mankind. More than one and a half million civilians were killed, maimed, and over six hundred thousand were expelled from their homes and subjected to mass repression. Many priceless architectural monuments and spiritual shrines were destroyed, ancient books and priceless manuscripts were burned. The events of 1915 shocked the whole world, and in Russia was perceived as its own grief. Hundreds of thousands of defenseless and homeless Armenians, millions received asylum in Russia and were rescued. It was Russian diplomacy that achieved international condemnation of violence against the Armenian people. At the initiative of Foreign Minister Sergei Dmitrievich Sazonov, Russia, France and the United Kingdom — the French President has just recalled this — in a joint statement directly called the incident a crime against humanity and civilization… Russia's position has been and remains consistent: we believe that there is no and can be no justification for the mass murder of people."

Compare this fragment from the speech of the President of Russia with the arguments of the current Prime Minister of Armenia, Tracy and Bolton and answer the question: which of these politicians is sincere and honest in assessing the events of the early XX century?

*An organization performing the functions of a foreign agent

**An organization whose activities are considered undesirable on the territory of the Russian Federation