FRIENDSHIP… AGAINST WHOM?

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev recently expressed his concerns over the double standards exhibited by numerous international institutions, including the European Union (EU). During a meeting with a delegation of German parliamentarians, President Aliyev criticized the inadequate statements made by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell. These statements, according to Aliyev, do not reflect reality and contradict international law norms, with Baku viewing them as a veiled threat.

Borrell had previously suggested that Azerbaijan would face bitter consequences if it were to attack Armenia. President Aliyev questioned the source of this information, emphasizing that Azerbaijan has no such plans. He attributed these insinuations to France's anti-Azerbaijani policy, which involves demonizing the country by falsely accusing it of preparing an attack on Armenia.

The notion of an "Azerbaijani threat" is frequently discussed in the Western press, perpetuating the idea that Azerbaijan has intentions to attack Armenia. This narrative raises questions about whether it is merely hysteria or a calculated campaign to manipulate public opinion.

Hysteria or information campaign?

Some circles within the West appear to be pushing Armenia towards a new round of military confrontation with Azerbaijan, indicating a dangerous scenario. There are multiple potential motivations behind this narrative. Some groups may still be struggling to accept Azerbaijan's victory in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and aim to keep the conflict alive for manipulation. Others might seek to exploit Armenia's grievances against Russia, transforming it from a Russian outpost into an anti-Russian one.

Despite Armenia's significant dependence on Russia for security, infrastructure, and energy, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has been making anti-Russian and pro-Western statements. Armenia's borders with Iran and Türkiye are guarded by Russian border guards, and it is unlikely that Yerevan has resources to replace them quickly. Especially when it has to build new borders with Azerbaijan. The Russian base in Gyumri is responsible for Armenia's military security. Armenia and Russia have joint land forces and a common air defence system. In practice, this means that the Armenian sky is also protected by Russia. The same goes for Armenia's railways, which are under the concession management of Russian Railways. In other words, Russia again has to maintain the unprofitable Armenian railways in working condition. Finally, Yerevan receives energy carriers from Moscow at domestic Russian prices....

Western politicians have been eager to engage in Armenian political games, and the current anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in foreign media seems to serve a specific purpose: creating an information backdrop that portrays Armenia as a helpless victim of "evil Azerbaijanis." This narrative may be employed to justify Western intervention in support of Armenia, particularly considering the ongoing war in Ukraine.

In conclusion, President Aliyev's statements draw attention to the complex geopolitical dynamics at play in the region and the potential for external manipulation. The portrayal of Azerbaijan as a threat to Armenia could be part of a broader campaign to shape public opinion and influence regional events. It is crucial for all parties involved to exercise caution and work towards achieving a peaceful resolution to conflicts.

The Western media, particularly the French press, have been discussing a potential scenario involving a swift attack by Armenia on Azerbaijan to seize strategic heights along the disputed border. Although this would not revert the situation to its state in September 2020, it would demonstrate Armenia's military capabilities. Following a series of military setbacks and Russia's unwillingness to provide the expected support, such an operation could solidify Western influence in Armenia.

However, there are questions regarding the forces required to execute this scenario. Experts note that by the middle of the "tenth," Azerbaijan had achieved military superiority over Armenia. Despite this, prior to the April 2016 clashes and the 44-day war, military experts maintained that there was no military solution to the conflict, implying that Azerbaijan would not be able to reclaim Garabagh.

How Macron humiliated Pashinyan

Armenia's perception of the current balance of power is also questionable. Following their defeat in the 44-day war, Yerevan's strategists kept a 15,000-strong force in Garabagh, intending to exact revenge. The recent visit of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to Paris, during which he attended a gala dinner at the Élysée Palace with Murad Papazian, Chairman of the Coordinating Council of Armenian Organizations of France and leader of the French Dashnaks, raises questions about France's role in the region. Papazian had previously been banned from entering Armenia due to his involvement in organizing anti-Pashinyan rallies, but he managed to overturn his persona non grata status through the court system.

While French President Emmanuel Macron's invitation to Papazian and his deputy Ara Toranian could be interpreted as an attempt to reconcile the leadership of France's Armenian community with the Armenian government, the actual intent may be quite different. Macron appears to be pushing for a united front of Armenian revanchists, potentially headed by Pashinyan or a candidate more aligned with French interests. The developments in Armenia could be viewed as internal issues or as challenges for Pashinyan personally, but the emphasis on revanchists indicates preparations for a new war. In light of this complex geopolitical landscape, the international community must remain vigilant and work towards promoting peace and stability in the region.

Who wants peace and who is preparing for war

The ancient adage, "If you want peace, prepare for war," has proven its relevance time and time again. However, it is important to recognise that not everyone who prepares for war necessarily desires peace. French President Emmanuel Macron claims that his support for Yerevan is aimed at preventing escalation, but the reality is more complex. The Armenian-French military cooperation, which includes the transfer of about 50 French-made wheeled armoured personnel carriers and artillery guns produced under French license in India, is increasing tensions in the region. Additionally, France has promised to support Armenia in training its military, including infantry and mountain gunners.

While some bloggers in Yerevan have ridiculed France's limited experience in winning wars, particularly in mountainous terrain, the significance lies in the military assistance itself. This support has given the Armenian leadership confidence that in case of emergency, France, the European Union, and the broader international community will come to their aid.

The repercussions of this provocative climate are evident along the disputed border between Azerbaijan and Armenia, where tensions have risen after months of relative calm. On February 12, an Azerbaijani border post in the Zangilan direction was shelled, resulting in the serious injury of a serviceman from the State Border Service. Similar reports of shelling have since become regular occurrences. Although Azerbaijan has demonstrated restraint in the face of these provocations, patience is not infinite. It is important to note that the military potential between the two nations favours Azerbaijan.

Armenia's political leadership has historically allowed itself to be used as a tool for the geopolitical ambitions of external powers. A century ago, the Entente countries utilized the "Armenian card" against the Ottoman Empire. Today, Armenia appears willing to serve as a platform for opening a second front against Russia, as evidenced by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's harsh statements against the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) coinciding with France's increased involvement in the South Caucasus.

Nevertheless, Armenia should remember that its external patrons in the past did not hesitate to abandon their support when events did not unfold as planned. As history has shown, geopolitical alliances can be fickle, and relying solely on external powers can lead to precarious situations. Therefore, it is crucial for all parties involved to exercise caution, prioritize diplomacy, and work towards de-escalating tensions in the region.