South Caucasus on edge: West fuels Armenia's war drums Yerevan clings to deceitful rhetoric

Yesterday, July 25, the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defenсe issued a stark warning to the Armenian leadership regarding the potential consequences of Yerevan's recent provocations.

"Efforts to draw the Republic of Armenia into rhetoric that escalates tensions are unacceptable. The Armenian government remains steadfast in its commitment to the peace agenda and will not stray from this course," said Armenian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Ani Badalyan. This response from Armenia was expected, with Badalyan labelling the Azerbaijani Defence Ministry's remarks as "incomprehensible."

A logical question arises: how did the Armenian Foreign Ministry come up with a reply to something it initially found incomprehensible? Clearly, the Armenian Ministry's attempt to counter the Azerbaijani statements fell short. This is due to the Azerbaijani Defence Ministry's clear indication that Armenia is preparing for a potential conflict with Azerbaijan.

Let me reiterate the key issues: the military exercises conducted by the United States in Armenia, France’s provision of lethal weapons to Armenia, and the European Union’s preliminary military assistance to Armenia through the European Peace Foundation amounting to ten million euros. Additionally, there’s the substantial arms purchase from India by Armenia. Despite these developments, the Armenian authorities refuse to amend their constitution, which still contains explicit territorial claims against Azerbaijan.

What does Ani Badalyan dispute among these points? Which of these events did not occur? All the facts reported by the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defence are verified and accurate. Yet, the Armenian Foreign Ministry continues its pattern of misrepresentation.

We’ve become accustomed to the Armenian side’s dishonesty. During the 44-day war, Armenian officials, including Artsrun Hovhannisian, became infamous for their falsehoods, earning him the nickname "the parrot." The Armenian Foreign Ministry was also deceptive during that conflict. The consistent dishonesty from Armenian representatives has led us to believe that Ani Badalyan is merely perpetuating this tradition of falsehoods. Furthermore, even after the Trilateral Statement was signed by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on November 10, 2020, Yerevan continued to engage in misleading practices.

For instance, Armenia provided Azerbaijan with eight forms of minefield maps, including those from the Murovdag Ridge in the Kalbajar region. These documents were later found to be inaccurate and incomplete, as stated by the State Mine Action Agency of Azerbaijan in February of this year.

Let me provide another example. Despite feigning a willingness to sign a peace treaty with Azerbaijan, Armenia continues its provocative actions. For instance, the so-called "Artsakh representation" remains operational in Yerevan. What about Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's supposed recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity?

Armenia’s special services are reportedly targeting Pashinyan's opponents but seem incapable of addressing the issue of the "Artsakh representation." This is absurd. Yet, when needed, Armenian Internal Affairs special forces have raided this "representation," seizing the official vehicle of the former Karabakh junta leader Samvel Shahramanyan. Where did Shahramanyan acquire this "official car"? Why is he serving instead of being in Baku’s pre-trial detention centre, alongside former Karabakh junta leaders? Ani Badalyan is unlikely to provide honest answers to these questions, but we have them. It is clear that both Shahramanyan and other separatists in Armenia recognize that the West supports Armenia and encourages its aggressive stance toward Azerbaijan.

This sentiment is also shared by opponents of the current Armenian government. For example, Dashnak MP Ishkhan Saghatelyan has met with several members of the EU legislature in the European Parliament. According to Armenian media, Saghatelyan "thanked the European Parliamentarians for their efforts in addressing Armenia and ‘Artsakh’ issues and for their principled stance."

How much clearer could it be? This gratitude comes from one of the most ardent Armenian revanchists, representing a party with a history of using terrorism for political aims, directed towards European Parliament members who regularly pass anti-Azerbaijani resolutions. This gratitude reflects an expectation of future support for Armenia’s revanchist ambitions. In other words, support for a new war, as Armenia prepares, buoyed by perceived Western backing. No matter how much Ani Badalyan might try to deny the obvious.