One step forward, two steps back: Yerevan opts for escalation Gunfire on the border once again

Yerevan has returned to its traditional practice of military provocations along the conditional border. The recent surge in attacks on Azerbaijani positions clearly demonstrates that Armenia's public assurances of peace are nothing but deception. This latest military adventure began almost immediately after Yerevan ostensibly agreed to Baku’s terms for a peace treaty. Such tactics appear entirely illogical and highlight the extreme inconsistency of Armenia’s leadership.

Yerevan's attempts to justify its provocations often reference events from June 2024, when Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, speaking at a meeting of the ruling Civil Contract party’s initiative group, made a grandiose proposal to establish a Joint Mechanism for Investigating Ceasefire Violations. Earlier, in January 2024, during a meeting with party members, he also put forward an initiative for a mutual arms control mechanism and an agreement with Azerbaijan. Both initiatives were designed more to attract international attention than to achieve genuine peace.

The revenge plan remains firmly on Armenia's agenda, as evidenced by statements from both the opposition and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's political adversaries, as well as remarks from current government officials. Armenian Parliament Speaker Alen Simonyan, during a meeting with European parliamentarians in Yerevan, claimed that “international humanitarian law failed in Nagorno-Karabakh” and repeated baseless accusations of “ethnic cleansing,” “Azerbaijani aggression,” and “vandalism against Armenian monuments.” He also lamented the lack of response from international organisations.

Such provocative rhetoric serves a single purpose—to keep the conflict alive in anticipation of a possible revanche. Armenia’s ongoing militarisation further confirms this intent. As previously reported by Caliber.Az, Armenia is actively preparing for a new war with Azerbaijan, which could erupt in the coming weeks following the planned mobilisation of reservists in April.

Moreover, sociological surveys indicate that Armenian society still refuses to accept the reality that “Karabakh is Azerbaijan!” The Armenian leadership has deliberately avoided amending its constitution to remove territorial claims against Azerbaijan and has taken no steps to formally dissolve the OSCE Minsk Group. These facts make it clear that achieving lasting peace in the region is not on Yerevan’s agenda. Instead, military provocations serve as a tool to derail stabilisation efforts.

It is also possible that the border attacks are part of a geopolitical agenda dictated by Armenia’s Western patrons, who are uneasy about the potential normalisation of Baku-Yerevan relations following a peace agreement. The conclusion is evident: the latest provocations on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border align with both Armenia’s internal strategy and the interests of external forces seeking to maintain instability.

The Director of the Russian Institute for Contemporary State Development, Dmitry Solonnikov, told Caliber.Az that Armenia’s inconsistent policy can be described as “one step forward, two steps back.” According to him, this stance is influenced by internal political dynamics as well as Nikol Pashinyan’s lack of political will for an external diplomatic resolution.

"We have repeatedly seen Pashinyan express readiness to align with Azerbaijan on certain issues, only to backtrack under internal pressure in an effort to maintain power. This demonstrates that the Armenian prime minister is highly dependent on both domestic politics and external influences. Next year, Armenia is set to hold elections, and Pashinyan’s political fate hinges on the outcome. Given the unpredictability of his policies, he may even choose to withdraw from the race or exit the political scene earlier than expected. However, for now, he is forced to navigate Armenia’s internal political landscape. It is also crucial to acknowledge that Pashinyan is externally managed—particularly by European elites and the Soros Foundation, whose backing helped bring him to power in 2018 through a coup.

Therefore, expecting a rational and independent approach from him in normalising relations with Azerbaijan is unrealistic. His actions will continue to be dictated by internal challenges and external oversight from abroad. Unsurprisingly, after declaring readiness to sign a peace agreement, he quickly began reversing course," Solonnikov stated.