Nikol Pashinyan's "peace claims" vs. border tensions What lies behind Armenia’s actions

Since March 16, Armenian armed formations have been regularly opening fire on the positions of the Azerbaijani army in various directions. As before, Armenian officials deny any involvement in the escalation and pretend not to understand the essence of the complaints.

Particular attention is drawn to the fact that the wave of shelling coincided with Yerevan's statements about its readiness to sign a peace treaty with Baku, with the Armenian side even expressing agreement with the last two points proposed by Azerbaijan.

Meanwhile, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan staged a media spectacle on the matter, claiming that he had given a supposedly firm order not to open fire. “My instruction to the Ministry Of Defense of Armenia is clear: do not commit any violation of the ceasefire regime. Armenia is heading for peace, not war,” Pashinyan wrote on his Facebook page on March 19. However, later that same evening, another attack from the Armenian side was recorded.

In such a situation, it is difficult to ignore analysts' claims that Yerevan is actually preparing for a new war or, at the very least, a large-scale operation along the de facto border. Talks about peace initiatives may merely serve as a tool for disinformation and manipulation.

What is the true goal behind the Armenian side’s “messages” and provocative actions? To explore this question, a Caliber.Az correspondent reached out to Azerbaijani and Russian experts.

Namig Aliyev, former Azerbaijani ambassador to Moldova and Georgia, head of the Department of International Relations and Foreign Policy at the Academy of Public Administration under the President of Azerbaijan, Doctor of Law, and professor, states that in recent days, there have been at least ten instances of shelling of Azerbaijani territory from Armenia. The vast majority of these incidents have gone unnoticed by the EU Monitoring Mission.

He also highlights the large-scale engineering and fortification works being carried out along the entire length of the de facto Armenian-Azerbaijani border. Additionally, weapons purchased from India are being deployed both along the de facto border with Nakhchivan and in other border areas.

“How do these facts align with the solemn statements of Armenia’s leaders about completing work on the peace treaty and their readiness to sign it? How does the proposal to start negotiations on the time and place for signing the agreement fit into this reality?” the political analyst wonders.

“If we try to determine the reasons behind the shelling of the Azerbaijani border, at least three possible explanations emerge. The first is that these attacks are provocations by opponents of a peace agreement with Azerbaijan. The second is that the peace talks and the treaty itself serve as a cover for Armenia’s preparations for a revanche war. The third is that the shelling is linked to the EU Monitoring Mission, as its presence is at risk—once all points of the peace agreement are finalized, it will have to leave the border.”

"It would be reassuring to believe in the first scenario, but that raises a question: why aren’t the Armenian authorities taking measures to stop these provocations? Would revanchists, fully aware of Yerevan’s peaceful intentions, really dare to openly sabotage the peace agreement with provocations against Azerbaijan? And if so, why do Armenian authorities limit themselves to statements instead of issuing real orders to cease fire?"

"In my view, the second option seems more realistic. Baku has never believed in the sincerity of the Armenian side, which has consistently demonstrated one striking quality — an inability to honor agreements. A clear example of this is the failure to implement the Tripartite Statement of November 9/10, 2020."

"Well, the third option is quite logical. The mission needs to justify the necessity of its presence. A cessation of shelling would demonstrate the 'effectiveness' of the mission. Therefore, based on this logic, the shelling after the agreement of all points of the peace treaty is meant to show what happens when the EU mission is withdrawn," suggested the political analyst.

Alexander Ryabtsov, a Russian political scientist and expert on the South Caucasus, believes that the increase in provocative armed activity from the Armenian side clearly indicates, at the very least, that Yerevan is dissatisfied with the progress of its dialogue with Baku. This signals that Armenia feels its interests are being infringed upon and is ready to resort to various options to achieve its goals.

"It is quite clear that Yerevan is unhappy about something. If they were satisfied, there would be no shelling from there. In my opinion, this is a clear indication that Armenia is trying to dictate its own rules, which involve forcing Baku to sign the peace treaty as quickly as possible. It’s as if they are saying, 'We’ve agreed on all points, accepted your terms — so be grateful, don’t miss your chance, let’s sign.' There’s no doubt that Yerevan believes that by agreeing now, they are doing Baku a big favour."

And Baku's response that Azerbaijan will sign the agreement only after all preconditions are met, including amendments to the Constitution of Armenia, was perceived in Yerevan as a new challenge. Meanwhile, Baku acts consistently and prudently, and the words of the President of Azerbaijan that the country relies not on verbal statements but on signed and implemented documents, say it all. Today, Pashinyan is extremely interested in signing a peace treaty with Baku - he needs this document to achieve domestic political goals. However, Azerbaijan is apparently once again outplaying Yerevan on the diplomatic track. The aggravation of the situation on the border is most likely an irritated reaction of the Armenian side to Baku's refusal to succumb to pressure and an attempt to impose its agenda. However, there is no doubt that such provocations will not achieve their goal, and Azerbaijan's stance will remain far-sighted and imperturbable," Ryabtsov added.