"Armenia may provoke a new conflict with Azerbaijan" Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

Panic is once again gripping Armenia over an alleged impending attack by Azerbaijan. The first alarm was sounded by political scientist Alen Ghevondyan. In an interview with News.am, he claimed that "Armenia will suffer territorial losses in the coming year, as this agreement was reached long ago." According to him, "there is a minimum plan and a maximum plan." Ghevondyan added, "Depending on the situation, the so-called Zangezur Corridor could imply the entire Syunik region, not just the road."

Shortly after, he was joined by the infamously controversial former Armenian Ombudsman, Arman Tatoyan. "Armenia’s ruling Civil Contract Party has turned the 'peace agenda' into a tool for clinging to power at the expense of destroying the foundations of our state. A non-existent issue has been fabricated into part of the agenda. By using the false concept of 'Western Azerbaijan,' the authorities in Baku are demanding 'security guarantees' for 300,000 Azerbaijanis, whom Azerbaijan plans to resettle in Armenia, including the deployment of armed forces from a third country on our sovereign territory. It is obvious that Azerbaijan plans to infiltrate Armenia with agents of its special services, disguised as 'eco-activists' who enforced the blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh," declared the "soothsayer" Tatoyan.

Why is this issue being stirred up again? Why does Yerevan think Azerbaijan has nothing better to do than seize Armenian territories?

These pressing questions have been addressed by renowned experts for Caliber.Az.

Russian political scientist and expert at the Caspian Institute for Strategic Studies, Alexander Karavayev, highlighted three key aspects:

"Firstly, it’s the vulnerability of Armenia’s position regarding Baku’s demand to address the fate of 300,000 people displaced from Armenia at the end of the 1980s. Yerevan is aware that Aliyev has, over recent years, engaged in significant work with global public opinion to bring attention to this issue. This topic is consistently raised in every interview the president gives on post-conflict matters, including the latest one with the Rossiya Segodnya news agency. In essence, it is gradually being introduced into the negotiation agenda with Armenia, and Yerevan is fully aware of this," the researcher explained.

Even if this issue is not currently included in the text of a joint memorandum on peace, it will eventually become part of the agenda at some stage, Karavayev explains.

"On Azerbaijan's part, there have already been certain steps, such as the activities of the Western Azerbaijan Community, which has become a tool of civil diplomacy in addressing this matter.

From Armenia's perspective, the situation unfolds in such a way that if they refuse to accept this topic as part of the negotiations, their only option to counter it is to escalate the issue. This involves framing it as a threat from Azerbaijan. Such a reversal of the narrative is a workable strategy, given the historical context and the Turkophobia prevalent among Armenia's European allies.

This issue is presented in Armenia as a threat and is effectively communicated to global public opinion. Under the current circumstances, it is relatively easy for Armenia to portray this alleged Azerbaijani threat, especially considering the work it has done with Western public opinion throughout the post-Soviet years. Naturally, the Armenian diaspora, which has been active for decades, plays a significant role in this process. This narrative aligns seamlessly with the long-established frameworks Armenia has been using for decades.

However, there is also a direct military-political advantage to this strategy. Under the guise of a threat from Azerbaijan, Armenia can further develop military-technical cooperation with numerous countries. Examples of this have emerged over the past two years, from India to France," the expert added.

This, according to him, aligns perfectly with the current agenda of Armenian foreign policy.

“Finally, it is important to note that when we talk about transitioning to the language of diplomacy, the two sides interpret it differently. From Azerbaijan's perspective, this language appeals to the interests of the Azerbaijani community displaced from Armenia, essentially addressing civil society.

On the other hand, Armenia frames this topic within a conflict-oriented agenda. The outcome of this approach could indeed lead to serious escalation, which, at some point, might even shift into the military domain.

In summary, the fears and phobias being stoked in the Armenian information space could, considering the history of the conflict dating back to Soviet times, realistically evolve into a scenario where the return of Azerbaijanis to Armenia’s current constitutional territory leads to a military confrontation in the medium term. It is already evident that this issue will become a topic of political debate—only a few steps remain. However, as we know, such political deadlocks often culminate in military actions, potentially provoked by Armenia but decisively countered by Azerbaijan’s armed forces.

This transition might not be as protracted as it was leading up to 2020. Back then, it took over a decade from the point when it became clear that negotiations over the return of occupied territories had stalled to the resolution of the conflict through military means. The last significant negotiation rounds took place in the late 2000s and early 2010s,” Karavayev recalled.

Political commentator Murad Sadaddinov, in turn, noted that this situation is connected to the emerging prospects of signing a peace treaty, as both the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides have indicated that the text of the agreement is largely finalized.

"Out of 17 points, 15 have been agreed upon. The remaining two points must be implemented by the Armenian side, and they are primarily related to constitutional amendments. To achieve this, the ruling party will need to turn to its population and hold a referendum. Certain opposition forces understand that if the peace treaty is signed, their chances of coming to power or overthrowing Pashinyan will drop to zero.

Therefore, they will resort to all kinds of political fabrications, spreading falsehoods and fearmongering among the population, accusing Pashinyan of being pro-Azerbaijani or pro-Turkish, and alleging that he is supposedly selling out Armenia's national interests. Their goal is simply to derail the signing of the peace treaty by any means necessary.

Signing the peace treaty will undoubtedly boost Pashinyan’s standing within Armenia, making it impossible for opposition forces to overthrow him in the future. While they currently have no realistic prospects of coming to power, after the signing of the peace treaty, the restoration of relations with Azerbaijan and Türkiye, and the opening of borders and communication lines, all of this will work in Pashinyan’s favour.

Thus, any such actions are specifically aimed at obstructing the signing of the peace treaty and opposing the resolution of issues that currently hinder its finalisation. I believe this is directly tied to the current situation," Sadaddinov concluded.