As it is known, on April 11, at about 16:20, units of the Armenian armed forces fired at the positions of the Azerbaijani Army in the Lachin district with various-caliber weapons. With a retaliatory strike by the Azerbaijani side, the enemy’s firing positions were suppressed, and the units of the Armenian armed forces suffered significant losses. Unfortunately, there were losses on the Azerbaijani side as well. This new military provocation of Armenia against Azerbaijan has once again confirmed that Yerevan is purposefully trying to destabilise the region despite Baku’s peaceful initiatives and efforts.
Meanwhile, certain circumstances indicate that the Armenian side’s provocation was almost predetermined. As before, one of the main reasons for the Armenians’ new outburst of aggression was Yerevan’s persistent reluctance to talk openly with Baku. It was after it became known about the possible negotiations between President Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinyan in Washington, initiated by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, that the Armenian side staged a military incident. That is, on the eve of any important, pivotal events that may affect the situation, Yerevan traditionally undertakes armed provocations in order to disrupt them and direct the attention of the international community to the “aggression of Azerbaijan”.
Secondly, it is not ruled out that the current provocation was prompted and approved by third countries. For example, Iran, which is traditionally negative, especially nowadays, against Azerbaijan. Tehran does not like the prospect of opening new and resuming once existing transport communications, primarily the Zangazur corridor, although, undoubtedly, it is strategically beneficial for all regional players. The fact that Iran became openly hostile towards Azerbaijan almost immediately after the Second Karabakh War, which fundamentally changed the balance of power in the South Caucasus, is an obvious fact, as is the fact that Tehran is extremely concerned not only about Azerbaijan’s victory over Armenia but also about the strengthening of Türkiye in the Middle East. The rise of Türkiye and Azerbaijan has revived and fuelled the phobias of Iranian rulers, who fancy themselves leaders of the region and are extremely jealous of their neighbours’ successes. And such self-proclaimed leaders need support, preferably subservient support, which Tehran now has virtually nowhere to gain except Armenia. So Yerevan is wrongly flattered by small handouts and flattering promises of the Iranians – they need it solely to satisfy their ambitions.
However, Armenia is no stranger to acting on orders from the outside. In order to mess with Baku, it will do anything, even impoverish its own people, and not only into servitude to Iran. The fact that the Iranian mullahcracy initiated the aggravation of relations between Tehran and Baku is like manna from heaven for Yerevan, and it is not surprising that this topic is being promoted with great enthusiasm in the Armenian media. Armenia dreams of a fight between Azerbaijan and Iran, especially since the Iranian side has already taken quite a lot of provocative steps. For example, it was Iran that was the first to conduct military exercises near the border with Azerbaijan, to fly military aircraft over it, staged a terrorist attack at the Azerbaijani embassy in Tehran, and even a terrorist attack against an Azerbaijani MP.
In other words, Tehran’s anti-Azerbaijani policy is based solely on the interests of Iran itself, rather than those of Armenia. In particular, Tehran dead set against any presence in the region of its main enemy, Israel, while Azerbaijan is deepening its cooperation with Israel every day. But why should Baku listen to Tehran, if this southern neighbour has been totally indifferent to the occupation of Karabakh and Eastern Zangazur for 30 years, and has been silently watching the destruction of the historical and spiritual heritage of our people? As the phrase goes, “As the call, so the echo as you sow, so shall you reap”…
But Armenia is absolutely delighted with the fact that it has a common dislike for Azerbaijanis with Iran, and is ready to act unconditionally to please it. All the more so as their aspirations now converge.
Thirdly, it is quite likely that Armenia has decided to deploy a CSTO mission on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and is trying to justify itself to its Western partners through provocations, shifting the blame for the military incident onto Azerbaijan. It can therefore be assumed that the possibility of a CSTO observer mission in the region, and in the not-too-distant future, is becoming a reality. Yerevan seems to understand that the West will not feed poor Armenia, while Russia, which is in a difficult situation because of the war in Ukraine, still supplies Armenians with cheap gas and does not impede their vital trade and financial ties with the EAEU.
On the other hand, the EU mission’s stay in Armenia has not so much justified the illusions of Yerevan, which had hoped that relations between the EU and Azerbaijan would come to naught. However, despite the fact that the EU mission was sent to Armenia without Baku’s consent, this did not become a stumbling block in bilateral relations, as Yerevan had apparently hoped it would. This fact has clearly reduced Baku’s confidence in Brussels, and as a consequence, Azerbaijan will probably in future prefer negotiations with Armenia on the American and Russian tracks, rather than on the European one. But overall, the EU’s policy towards Azerbaijan as the guarantor of energy security in the South Caucasus has not changed. For Baku, however, it is clear that the EU observer mission in Armenia has not become a deterrent to regional stability, as evidenced by Yerevan’s successive military provocations on the border with Azerbaijan. In fact, this is the main trump card in Moscow’s hands, and it is likely to press Yerevan on the issue of the CSTO mission in the region. However, no matter how hard Armenia tries to obstruct peace with Azerbaijan by staging military provocations on the border, it will remain at the beck and call of its imaginary patrons, carrying out instructions from Moscow, Brussels, and now Tehran.