US intelligence has identified the key factors of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict

The Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan reported that an Azerbaijani serviceman was seriously injured as a result of massive shelling from Armenia. The Azerbaijani military department further stated that the Armenian Armed Forces escalated the situation on May 11 by firing mortars and small arms at Azerbaijani positions.

Soldier Mahmudlu Muslim Vidadi oglu was seriously wounded in the head. He was immediately taken to a military medical facility for treatment.

The Azerbaijani Defense Ministry emphasized that despite previous warnings to cease provocations and deliberate escalation, the Armenian side had once again violated the ceasefire. Consequently, the Azerbaijani Army responded with necessary retaliatory measures against the provocation.

The responsibility for the deliberate provocation was placed on the military-political leadership of Armenia, a sentiment echoed by the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry. In contrast, the Armenian Defense Ministry claimed that the Azerbaijani Armed Forces had initiated artillery and mortar fire on Armenian positions in the Sotk region since 6:00 AM on May 11.

The tensions in the region have been heightened by the presence of the Zod mine, which holds a significant gold deposit falling within Azerbaijani territory. After Azerbaijan's liberation of the Kelbajar region in 2020, tensions have persisted in the area due to the cessation of Armenia's exploitation of the Azerbaijani part of the field.

Responding to the recent escalation near the Zod mine on May 11, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry accused Armenia of increasing military provocations in the border areas. They emphasized that Armenia's actions demonstrated a lack of interest in the peace process, despite ongoing negotiations, and called on the international community to condemn Armenia's damaging provocations.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, during a government meeting on May 11, alleged that Azerbaijan was attempting to disrupt the establishment of a border checkpoint in Lachyn by aggravating the situation. However, Pashinyan stated that he did not intend to cancel a meeting with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in Brussels on May 14.

While Azerbaijan confirmed its participation in the scheduled meeting between the Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders in Brussels on May 14, which will also involve the head of the EU Council, Charles Michel, they have not yet given their final consent for a meeting on June 1 in Chisinau with the leaders of France and Germany. Azerbaijan's participation in the Chisinau meeting is contingent upon preserving the Brussels format and receiving detailed information about the meeting's format.

As a mediator in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Russia has called for restraint from both Armenia and Azerbaijan, according to Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of the Russian President. While President Putin recently had separate conversations with Pashinyan and contacts with the Azerbaijani side are ongoing, there are no planned contacts between Putin and the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan amid the current escalation. Peskov emphasized the importance of a restrained approach by both parties and urged against actions that could further escalate tensions.

US Intelligence Identifies Key Factors in Armenian-Azerbaijani Conflict

According to a recent annual review of global risks presented to Congress by US intelligence services on March 8, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan remains unresolved due to three primary issues. The first is the absence of a peace treaty, followed by the unresolved problem of delimitation and demarcation, and the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Armenian-populated territory of Karabakh. These factors have contributed to the persistent tensions between the two countries.

The review also noted that the tensions observed after the 44-day war in 2020 were anticipated, primarily due to the Armenian community's unwillingness to accept the outcome of the war. This refusal resulted in the loss of Azerbaijani territories that were captured between 1992 and 1994.

Armenia's strategy of rejecting the proposed compromise line and the uncompromising stance of the Armenians residing in Karabakh have led to a stalemate. The war highlighted that the management and behavior of the Karabakh Armenians were more directly influenced by the region itself rather than by Armenia. The complete ceasefire declaration and the withdrawal of the Armenian Armed Forces affirmed Azerbaijan's claims of aggression by Armenia and the seizure of Azerbaijani territories by its regular army, countering the notion of unspecified "Armenian forces" mentioned in international documents signed by intermediaries.

Previous assessments have emphasized the divergent approaches to peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Azerbaijan's position rests on three pillars: the establishment of a comprehensive peace agreement, the unblocking of all transportation communications, and the delimitation and demarcation of the border. On the other hand, Armenia insists on a preliminary determination of the status of the Armenian-populated territory of Karabakh, specifically advocating for independence for the Armenians residing in Karabakh, separate from Azerbaijan.

Despite multiple negotiations involving Brussels and Moscow, the parties' positions have remained unchanged, with Yerevan consistently losing the military-political initiative. Failure to adhere to the basic status quo established following the 44-day war may result in further escalations and a diminishing military-political initiative for Armenia in the region.