'Hatred of Armenians is the glue of Aliyev regime': Yerevan reacts to Aliyev’s speech
Aliyev calls Armenians “hateful enemies”
For the past two weeks, Armenian authorities have repeatedly declared their readiness to sign the finalised text of a peace treaty with Azerbaijan. At the same time, the international community has urged both sides to sign the document as soon as possible. However, Baku continues to impose preconditions for signing, while Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev uses increasingly aggressive, hate-fuelled rhetoric.
Speaking yesterday in Aghdam — a region that came under Azerbaijani control after the 44-day Karabakh war — Ilham Aliyev referred to Armenians as “hateful enemies” and claimed that “Armenian fascism is the highest form of fascism.” Aliyev made similar remarks before — including earlier this year, when he declared that “the so-called independent Armenian state is essentially a fascist state.”
According to Armenia-based Azerbaijan expert Tatevik Hayrapetyan, “this kind of discourse is yet another proof of Aliyev’s racist policies.” She notes that such rhetoric has become a regular pattern. In 2024 alone, the Azerbaijani president has referred to Armenians as “jackals,” “rabbits,” “bloodthirsty enemies,” and “vandals.” In Hayrapetyan’s view, “state-level hate propaganda unites Azerbaijani society against a common enemy and helps legitimise military aggression.”
Aliyev’s speech sparked strong reactions among Armenian analysts, with many condemning his stance.
“Aliyev’s regime has become the main branch of fascism in the region. His rhetoric clearly shows that the Azerbaijani dictator has no real intention of making peace with Armenia — even though he himself agreed to the draft treaty,” said political analyst Ruben Mehrabyan.
- ‘Moscow won’t be able to settle comfortably between Yerevan and Baku’: Pashinyan–Rubio conversation
- ‘Problems must be resolved without use of force’: Iranian foreign minister visits Yerevan
- Armenia ‘does not set goals for escalation’—what about Azerbaijan? Analysis from Yerevan
Aliyev on “hateful enemies”
Azerbaijani media report that on 27 March, President Ilham Aliyev met with residents of the village of Sarijali in the Aghdam district. He handed over keys to their new apartments and gave a 15-minute speech. In particular, he said:
“Both the city of Aghdam and all the villages in the district were completely destroyed by the hateful enemy — not a single building was left standing. This once again shows the true nature of the enemy, their utterly baseless hostility towards us. […]
Aghdam is called the ‘Hiroshima of the Caucasus’. But the difference is that Hiroshima was destroyed by an atomic bomb. Aghdam, on the other hand, was dismantled stone by stone over 30 years by thieves, looters — Armenian looters — and its remains sold off in different places. This is unprecedented barbarism. I’ve said it many times before: Armenian fascism is the peak of fascism.”
During his speech — and in the Q&A session that followed — Aliyev made no mention of the peace treaty or the possibility of signing it.
Expert commentary
Azerbaijan expert Tatevik Hayrapetyan counted 11 instances of the word “enemy” used by Ilham Aliyev in his 15-minute speech — all in reference to Armenians — along with accusations of fascism. Her conclusion:
“If Aliyev is looking for a fascist, he only needs to look in the mirror.”
According to her, Baku continues to provoke hostility and hatred while simultaneously blocking any prospects for reconciliation or peace.
Hayrapetyan also analysed the Azerbaijani president’s speeches from the previous year, noting a consistent pattern of aggressive rhetoric and hate speech. She compiled all his statements in an article, concluding:
By documenting Aliyev’s own words, we gain a stark, unfiltered view of how deeply anti-Armenian sentiment is embedded in Azerbaijan’s political discourse and why peace remains so elusive.
She adds that reports by the human rights organisation Transparency International also highlight how Azerbaijani authorities systematically promote the dehumanisation and demonisation of Armenians. Such a policy, she argues, shapes a national identity built on a sense of superiority over Armenians and their humiliation.
Hayrapetyan believes that this hate-filled rhetoric serves two purposes:
- to inflame public sentiment, and
- to provide a false moral justification for Azerbaijan’s continued military operations and violations of international humanitarian law.
She concludes that the Azerbaijani government has shut down all internal debate about peace — and notes that those advocating for Armenian-Azerbaijani reconciliation face the threat of imprisonment.
Political analyst Ruben Mehrabyan told JAMnews that the focus of Ilham Aliyev’s speech targeted domestic Azerbaijani audience:
“Creating and maintaining the image of an enemy remains essential for the stability of the Aliyev regime. It’s the glue that holds his rule together — and he has no intention of giving it up. In fact, he’s amplifying it.”
In his view, Aliyev’s statements also serve as a signal to Azerbaijani media to disseminate this rhetoric more broadly. At the same time, he sends a warning to pro-peace segments of society that authorities will treat their behaviour as “anti-state” and punish it.
Mehrabyan doesn’t rule out that the aggressive rhetoric could become a tool for escalation:
“It’s a fallback option Aliyev keeps on standby — a door he always wants to keep open.”
He believes that Yerevan is likely to issue an official response to Aliyev’s remarks. He also interprets the recent special session of the OSCE Permanent Council, convened at Armenia’s request, as a form of response — although Aliyev’s speech came after that session. Thus, he sees the speech as Baku’s answer to Yerevan’s push for a treaty and to international pressure.
Mehrabyan acknowledges that Azerbaijan is under some international pressure, but says it is far from sufficient to force a policy shift.
He argues that change is only likely if Aliyev begins to feel the threat of economic sanctions against Azerbaijan or personal sanctions against members of his family.
However, he notes that no major global players currently show the will to impose such measures. As a result, he advises the Armenian government to take its own steps, making use of the existing international consensus in favour of signing a peace treaty.
Mehrabyan believes Armenia must build its strategy around the real possibility of future Azerbaijani aggression, suggesting the development of a “Plan B” in case Baku is not planning to sign a peace deal in the near future. This should involve continued reforms, building new alliances, modernising the military, and establishing a strong defence and security system.
