Binoculars, brandy, and bias: EU Mission's spy games in Armenia Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

During the Easter weekend, the EU’s spy mission in Armenia suddenly “woke up” and decided to urgently report on its intense activities.

According to the published report, European observers tirelessly patrolled their area of responsibility: over the weekend, 27 day and night raids were conducted.

At the same time, the European Union Mission in Armenia (EUMA ) concluded that the silence on the border was disturbed by gunfire allegedly from the Azerbaijani side, which, according to them, damaged “civilian infrastructure.” Notably, the observers themselves are not certain about this but allow themselves to use phrasing such as: the shots “possibly originating from an Azerbaijani position in the area.”

One is tempted to ask: what exactly prevented these “objective” observers from establishing a clear picture of what really happened? Was it chronic sleep deprivation—or perhaps an overindulgence in Armenian brandy during their nightly patrols?

The level of EUMA’s bias has long hit rock bottom. It’s obvious that the Europeans stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the main issue: it is the Armenian side that regularly carries out shelling along the Azerbaijani border. Yet, unsurprisingly, there’s not a single word about this in their reports.

European monitors continue to play the role of the “blind” and the “deaf,” making no effort whatsoever to uncover the real causes of the incidents. In fact, previous reports were full of phrases about the “calm and quiet” along the border. This naturally raises the question: what is the true purpose of the EU mission—besides constantly peering through binoculars at Azerbaijan?

Israeli political analyst, PhD in Political Science, and editor of Aziznews.com, Yuri Bocharov, notes that the EU mission increasingly resembles a geopolitical tool of pressure on Baku.

"The European mission EUMA is blatantly siding with the Armenian party. The use of phrases like the shots ‘possibly originating from an Azerbaijani position’ in official reports is not objectivity—it's diplomatic manipulation.

From a legal standpoint, such wording carries no weight, but in the political arena it helps create a convenient narrative for the EU — ‘Azerbaijan is to blame.’ When Armenia systematically violated the ceasefire regime, EUMA preferred to remain silent.

Azerbaijan never invited the EU into the region as a tool of pressure. On the contrary, Baku sought support for reintegration of territories, infrastructure restoration, and genuine de-escalation. But Brussels repeatedly responded with: ‘not now,’ ‘not our format.’

Now, as Azerbaijan ensures security on its own soil, the EU has become active—not as a mediator, but as a moraliser with double standards. Who benefits from this? Naturally, the Europeans themselves, who find prolonged turbulence in the region convenient to justify their presence and to influence Azerbaijan’s energy policy. What they call ‘monitoring’ is, in fact, a subtle form of geopolitical control.

That’s precisely why there are growing questions about these ‘binocular enthusiasts.’ Their mission is not about peace—it’s about applying pressure on a strong Azerbaijan that is confidently restoring its sovereignty. For Brussels, this is a threat to its plans of reformatting the region,” Bocharov stated.

A similar view was expressed by Russian expert Renat Savin, who is alarmed by the fact that the EU no longer even tries to conceal its true intentions.

“The Europeans are primarily interested in how, and with what means, Azerbaijan will respond to Armenia’s regular provocations. In effect, EU observers are acting as data collectors on the Azerbaijani Armed Forces.

When it comes to shelling from the Armenian side, however, the Europeans are in no rush to comment—they simply pretend it isn’t happening at all.

The EU mission in the South Caucasus does not exist to maintain peace, but rather to destabilise the situation as much as possible. Provocations are a key tool in this. The observers eagerly await the moment when Azerbaijan ‘loses its temper’ and responds—preferably with heavy fire. That would give them the perfect excuse to loudly accuse Azerbaijan of ‘aggression against Armenia and peace.’

The fact that this time the Europeans rushed to blame Azerbaijan without even attempting to examine the details of the incident only confirms this: the moment a firefight breaks out, these ‘Euro-spies’ will instantly point the finger at Baku.

What follows is the usual round of statements from Brussels calling for peace. This entire theatre clearly reveals the true purpose of the EU mission — to serve as an instrument of pressure and provocation against Azerbaijan,” Savin stated.