“Expert Dialogue” or a Visit by Traitors? What Were the Armenian “Representatives” Doing in Baku?
On November 21, 2025, Baku staged yet another cynical “performance” disguised as an “expert dialogue.” This was no dialogue—it was a display of humiliating humbleness. The trip was financed from Armenia’s already strained state budget: 17 million 550 thousand drams were spent not on public needs, but on the travel expenses of supposedly “elected” individuals who no longer hide whom they truly serve. Information about the visit of these Armenian “civil society representatives” was published by the Sputnik Armenia news agency.
Who exactly are these “representatives of civil society”? Boris Navasardyan, Areg Kochinyan, Narek Minasyan, Samvel Meliksetyan, Naira Sultanyan… Listing these names does not mean naming representatives of the people. They are puppets granting legitimacy to Azerbaijani propaganda.
The behavior of Boris Navasardyan is especially outrageous. Instead of speaking out about Azerbaijan’s genocidal policies, he chooses silence in the face of horrific realities. As Azerbaijani authorities stage a judicial farce targeting Armenian captives - demanding sentences of 16 to 20 years - Navasardyan remains quiet or, worse, lends justification to these actions.
The judicial proceedings against Armenian captives of war are not a routine legal process. They constitute a grave blow to the very existence of the Armenian state and its people. Yet for Navasardyan, this seems to amount merely to a “polite rejection.” This is how he described the refusal to allow a meeting with Armenian captives held in Baku:
“If no such meeting was included in the visit program, it means such a proposal was rejected. We were provided with the visit agenda, we had some comments, and since there was no point concerning the meeting, though we expressed such desire, it means there was a polite rejection.”
A “polite rejection”… These words are a slap in the face of every Armenian. Denying the right to meet compatriots suffering in captivity is not “polite.” It is an inhumane act masked by diplomatic phrasing.
Naira Sultanyan, a human rights defender, claims that the issue of the possible return of the captives was raised during the “discussions.” And then what? The Azerbaijani authorities provided no concrete answer - not even a list of the captives.
It should be emphasized that both these so-called “civil society representatives” and Hajiyev are ultimately serving Pashinyan’s interests. Whenever questions arise about steps being taken to secure the release of the captives, government officials give the same stock responses: “negotiations are ongoing,” “details cannot be disclosed so as not to harm the process.” The authorities keep “assuring” the public that they are making efforts. This has been happening for years. But where are the results? Where are the freed captives? Where is there at least a sign of progress in the negotiations?
Areg Kochinyan’s remarks made the situation even more disgraceful. He went so far as to label compatriots who do not welcome such a “settlement” as “either foreign agents or rascals.” This was not an analysis; it was a report wrapped in elegant wording. For the thousands of Armenians grieving the loss of Artsakh, such statements feel like an act of betrayal. They diminish their pain, their memories, and their remaining hope. Even worse, these words are spoken on taxpayers’ money.
So who is the real “rascal” here? Those who refuse to remain silent, or those who use public funds to insult their own compatriots? Who granted Kochinyan the authority to divide Armenians into those “who are right” and those who are “rascals”? On what basis does he brand people who still remember the lost Artsakh as traitors? Why is rhetoric that undermines national unity being financed from the state budget?
His comments cannot be considered expert opinion - they amount to a blow in the back of thousands of families still living through this tragedy. It is an attempt to suppress memory under the guise of “pragmatism.” From the standpoint of national interests, that visit had no purpose. It was nothing but betrayal, cynicism, and hypocrisy. One can easily discern Baku’s political agenda behind it: to present Nikol Pashinyan as a “guarantor of peace” and to portray everyone who disagrees as “traitors” supposedly capable of leading the country into another war.
Ishkhan Saghatelyan (ARF Dashnaktsutyun) delivered a very explicit criticism:
- While Azerbaijani prosecutors are demanding life sentences for the leaders of Artsakh (Arayik Harutyunyan, David Ishkhanyan, and others), these so-called “experts” are ceremoniously conducting talks in Baku.
- The delegation did not even make an effort to visit the prisoners of war. This was not a dialogue; it was a farce.
- Their presence does not build trust - it legitimizes Azerbaijan’s actions, including ethnic cleansing.
Saghatelyan is right: this was not a step toward peace, but a meeting with agents of influence. These “representatives” have no moral authority to speak on behalf of the Armenian people.
That “dialogue” was nothing more than a staged performance meant to create an illusion of progress in the peace process. In reality, it once again revealed the inability of these “representatives” to defend the rights of the people, the cynicism of Azerbaijani authorities pretending to engage in negotiations, and the indifference of Armenian officials willing to tolerate such humiliation.
The visit in question was not an attempt to establish dialogue, but a display of submission to Baku, an example of public funds being spent on the government’s image-making projects, an effort to discredit the opposition through the narrative that “those who disagree are traitors,” and a step toward legitimizing the persecution of Artsakh’s leaders. All of this indicates that Ilham Aliyev has effectively become involved in Nikol Pashinyan’s election campaign. The plan is straightforward: peace with Pashinyan, and conflict with the opposition, whose representatives are portrayed as enemies of Armenia with supposed revanchist aims. In short, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The Public Tribunal cannot remain silent. These so-called experts do not speak for Armenia; they serve as the voice of external actors and of Nikol Pashinyan. Their visit is a slap in the face to those who lost their homes in Artsakh, to those who lost family and friends, to those who cannot bear the ongoing desecration of Armenian monasteries and holy sites in Artsakh and Nakhijevan, to those still waiting for the return of the captives, and to all who still believe in justice. Yet individuals from this so-called “civil society” brand such people as traitors. The names of those who traveled to Baku, labeled their own compatriots, and acted as instruments of propaganda for Ilham Aliyev and Nikol Pashinyan should remain in history as a symbol of profound betrayal.
