Западные СМИ обвиняют армянскую диаспору в организации гибридной информационной войны против Азербайджана

Editor’s note: Fuad Abdullayev is a leading adviser at the Center for Analysis of International Relations and Multiculturalism (AIR Center). He specialises in analysing political and security processes in the South Caucasus. The views expressed in this article are his own and do not necessarily reflect the official position or editorial stance of News.Az. In recent years, particularly following Azerbaijan’s restoration of state sovereignty over its formerly occupied territories, an information campaign unprecedented in its scale and coordination has been observed across leading Western media outlets. Publications by these prominent and influential media organisations demonstrate a striking uniformity in anti-Azerbaijani narratives that systematically echo statements made by the Armenian diaspora and structures affiliated with it. A thorough analysis of the facts points to a carefully planned information and hybrid warfare campaign. The available evidence suggests that the extensive Armenian diaspora may be both a beneficiary and sponsor of this hybrid campaign, having shifted its efforts towards media lobbying and negative PR following crushing setbacks on the military and diplomatic fronts. It should be acknowledged that the influence of ethnic diasporas on the editorial policies of global media organisations is rarely exercised through direct contacts. Instead, it may operate through professional events, educational programmes, expert networks, journalistic trips, public campaigns and engagement with political institutions. In leading Western media outlets, such connections may manifest themselves, among other ways, through the presence of specialists focusing on the South Caucasus. In this context, particular attention should be paid to the activities of the Armenian diaspora, which for decades has consistently built an extensive infrastructure of socio-political and informational influence in the United States and the European Union. Its capabilities in this sphere are linked not only to the size of Armenian communities in Western countries but also to the activities of various lobbying and public organisations. Among them are the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) and the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy (EAFJD) in Brussels. It should be emphasised that these organisations employ various instruments to advance their agenda. They engage with politicians, participate in financing election campaigns, cooperate with think tanks and develop professional ties within public and media institutions. A key factor in this strategy is the direct involvement of journalists of Armenian origin and pro-Armenian lobbyists in shaping the editorial policies of major media organisations. One notable example is The Washington Post, where David Ignatius, a prominent columnist covering the region, has close ties with Armenian diaspora structures. It should be emphasised that David Ignatius joined the selection committee of the Aurora Humanitarian Prize, which was co-founded by Ruben Vardanyan, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison in Azerbaijan for serious crimes. The prize, with a $1 million award fund, is formally presented to individuals who risk their lives to save people affected by conflicts. The very fact that a journalist participates in the work of such a committee indicates professional contact with the prize organisers and the close integration of prominent journalists into diaspora-related projects. Another example concerns the activities of ANCA. The organisation annually conducts programmes aimed at professional development and the promotion of public initiatives. Its 2025 programme included a discussion on careers in media and public policy featuring Charlie Mahtesian, a senior politics editor at POLITICO. Such participation by journalists and editors from major American media organisations in events organised by diaspora groups creates additional opportunities for communication between the media environment and groups interested in promoting a particular political agenda. Importantly, ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian has himself drawn attention to ties with leading American media organisations. In one of his statements, he indirectly referred to contacts with representatives of national US media outlets, including the Associated Press, USA Today, CBS News and The Washington Post. Thus, contacts between ANCA and representatives of the American media sector are not merely a matter of speculation; the organisation itself has publicly referred to such interactions. Another area of activity pursued by Armenian organisations involves educational and professional programmes. In particular, the Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU) has for many years implemented programmes supporting the education and professional development of members of the Armenian diaspora. According to official reports, the organisation systematically funds scholarships for members of the diaspora studying journalism and public relations at leading universities in the United States and Europe, thereby helping to build a pool of professionals. For example, AGBU directly funded extended internships for Armenian journalists at CNN’s headquarters in Atlanta as part of efforts to integrate them into CNN World Report. Notably, during the 24th season of its summer internship programme in 2011, 33 students from around a dozen countries met in New York with CNN senior editorial producer Shant Petrossian, who taught the students strategies for building careers within complex television organisations, thereby strengthening professional networks. Particular attention should also be paid to the interaction between Armenian organisations and US political institutions. In this context, former US Senator Robert Menendez is frequently mentioned. For many years, Menendez maintained a prominent position on foreign policy issues and Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. He criticised Azerbaijan’s policies, supported a number of Armenia-related initiatives and took an active stance on issues concerning the Armenian-American diaspora. His activities repeatedly received positive assessments from representatives of the Armenian lobby. At the same time, in 2024, Menendez was found guilty by a US federal court on several corruption charges. In January 2025, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison. The US Department of Justice stated that he had accepted bribes in exchange for advancing the interests of foreign individuals. This example demonstrates how closely foreign policy issues in Washington can intersect with the activities of various political, public and ethnic lobbying structures. It was precisely politicians of this kind who, for years, helped shape a distorted information environment in Washington, which was subsequently retransmitted uncritically by broadcasters such as CNN and in the pages of The New York Times, presenting propaganda as independent journalism. Similar processes can also be observed in European countries, particularly France and Belgium, where the Armenian diaspora has developed an extensive network of public and political organisations. One example is the activity of the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy (EAFJD). Representatives of this organisation maintain contacts with European politicians, journalists and public figures and participate in promoting issues related to Armenia and the Armenian diaspora. An illustrative example can be found in an article published by the Committee of Armenians of Belgium, in which Anne-Marie Mouradian describes interactions between Armenian organisations and Belgian and French journalists. In particular, she mentions Belgian journalist Christophe Lamfalussy, who, following an invitation from the EAFJD, prepared an editorial piece on Armenia. He later visited Syunik together with photographer Olivier Papegnies and produced reports about the region and Armenian cultural heritage in Karabakh. This case demonstrates that diaspora organisations can act as intermediaries between journalists and the subjects they cover, including by helping to organise trips and establish contacts on the ground. Mouradian’s comments regarding the financial situation of the Belgian media market are also noteworthy. She points out that high-quality Belgian media outlets face financial difficulties and that stories about Armenia often fail to attract large audiences. If this description reflects the actual situation, it raises the question of why journalists continue to devote considerable attention to Armenian issues despite the limited commercial potential of such coverage. Similar contacts can be observed in France in the activities of a number of journalists and public figures. Mouradian specifically mentions Jean-Christophe Buisson, a former war correspondent and deputy editor of Le Figaro, who has regularly published material concerning Armenia and Armenian issues. Mouradian states that Buisson tirelessly “informs” the French public. According to her, Buisson actively disseminated information about Armenia through articles, reports and social media. She also notes that Buisson mobilises his colleagues and friends, beginning with Sylvain Tesson, the prolific travel writer who first discovered Armenia at the age of 20 and who was invited to cover the 44-day war alongside him. The same article also discusses the extensive activities of French and Belgian media outlets in Lachin during the summer of 2022. Coverage of the subject appeared, among others, in Le Figaro, France Culture, France Info, Euronews and France 24, as well as Belgium’s RTBF. At the same time, such publications often overlooked the international legal framework governing the settlement of the conflict. For three decades, influential media organisations rarely mentioned that Azerbaijanis had been forcibly expelled from their homes and that Azerbaijani territories were under illegal military occupation. Thus, an analysis of information processes surrounding the South Caucasus indicates that international perceptions of regional developments are shaped not only by objective factors but also by the active promotion of particular political narratives by interested parties. The use of media resources, expert platforms and lobbying mechanisms makes it possible to entrench one-sided assessments and influence Western audiences’ perceptions of Azerbaijan’s policies. In this regard, an objective understanding of ongoing developments requires comparing the narratives being disseminated with the factual circumstances, historical context and norms of international law. Only such a comprehensive approach makes it possible to distinguish journalistic coverage of events from targeted information influence and to develop a more balanced understanding of the processes unfolding in the South Caucasus. (If you possess specialized knowledge and wish to contribute, please reach out to us at [email protected] ). News.Az