Azernews.Az

Qabil Ashirov

Read more

Unfortunately, Armenia once more remains true to its historical patterns, lending truth to the proverbial leopard never changes its spots. Like one hundred years ago, Armenia is voluntarily eager to take part, as a pawn, in a conflict fanned by much bigger actors, the outcome of which promises nothing good for Yerevan. It seems Armenians, scattered throughout the world, will make much ado about how big powers betrayed them, exploiting the adage that history repeats itself.

To put this into perspective, over a century ago, as the world stood on the brink of a new global order, Armenia involved itself in conflicts that set the stage for the deportation of Armenian communities. In the aftermath, Armenians began raising claims of genocide, accusing the Ottoman Empire of orchestrating a systematic extermination.

A hundred years later, as the world teeters on the edge of a new global order, Armenians are again attempting to involve themselves in a conflict that could pave the way to calamity for them. To provide some insight, the Russo-Ukrainian war is seen as a precursor to a new era in the global order. NATO and, especially, the EU view Russia as a serious threat to their security and are going to extreme lengths to make Russia withdraw its military forces from the Union’s borders.

As is known, boasting the strongest army after Russia in the former Soviet Union, Azerbaijan is the only country that can fight fire with fire. Given that Armenia is the number one strategic ally of Russia and a member of Russian-led organizations such as Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), any conflict with Yerevan will lead confrontation with Moscow. To this end, the Western media outlets have been circulating news that supposedly Azerbaijan is going to attack Armenia for three years.

Of course, the only way to achieve these ends is to ignite new conflicts that would necessitate Russia's involvement, and the South Caucasus is an ideal region for this. As is well known, Azerbaijan boasts the second strongest army in the former Soviet Union, after Russia, and is the only country capable of engaging in direct combat. Given that Armenia is Russia’s top strategic ally and a member of Russian-led organizations such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), any conflict with Yerevan would inevitably lead to a confrontation with Moscow. In this context, Western media outlets have been circulating reports claiming that Azerbaijan has been poised to attack Armenia for the past three years.

Needless to say, all these accusations and claims were baseless because, unlike Armenia, Azerbaijan has never followed an expansionist foreign policy. Furthermore, the strategy Azerbaijan pursued during the 44-day War confirmed its stance and its commitment to international law. Thus, despite having had several opportunities to annex parts of Armenia, Azerbaijan did not take advantage of them. Baku remained true to its principles and did not fall for the provocations of the West and its little ally.

Seeing that their provocations were not going to work, they shifted gears, and the Armenian side has been firing at Azerbaijani positions since that time. The plan is obvious: they want Azerbaijani soldiers to cross the Armenian border because it would put Russia in a dilemma—either Russia would have to shift some of its military forces from Ukraine to the South Caucasus, or it would lose face as a power that cannot protect its top ally.

As the proverb goes, ‘A liar keeps his witnesses handy,’ Yerevan’s witness, European Union Monitoring Activity (EUMA), is ready. Of course, EUMA plays a significant role in this process. Although EUMA positions itself as an objective observer, its actions and statements often appear to align more closely with Armenian narratives, thereby undermining its credibility. The EU’s influence in the South Caucasus cannot be ignored, especially considering the political and economic interests at play. The EU has, at times, been accused of turning a blind eye to Armenia's provocations and focusing disproportionately on criticizing Azerbaijan, even when the facts are not entirely clear. This bias is not only dangerous but also counterproductive, as it fosters a climate of distrust and suspicion between Azerbaijan and the West.

EUMA's presence, therefore, risks becoming a tool for political manipulation rather than a neutral force for peace. When an observer is perceived to have a vested interest in one side's success over the other, it erodes the legitimacy of its observations. The South Caucasus, a region fraught with historical and geopolitical complexities, deserves unbiased and fair monitoring. Instead, EUMA's actions contribute to further polarization. If the West truly seeks peace and stability in the region, it must reassess its role and ensure that its monitoring activities serve to promote balance and encourage dialogue rather than fuel existing tensions. The credibility of any peace process hinges on impartiality, something EUMA has yet to fully demonstrate in its involvement with Azerbaijan and Armenia.