What can be the result of the tension on the border of Azerbaijan and Armenia? -Azad Isazade

Recent developments along the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia have reignited concerns about the potential consequences of escalating tensions in the region. Reports from Baku indicating the concentration of Armenian troops near the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (NAR) have raised alarm, with Armenia vehemently denying these allegations. The Armenian government contends that the observed activities, including the construction of defensive infrastructure, are well within its sovereign rights.

However, the situation took a more ominous turn on April 1 when the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan reported incidents of small arms fire from Armenian Armed Forces directed towards Azerbaijani Army positions near NAR settlements. In response, Armenia accused Azerbaijan of threatening its territorial integrity and exacerbating tensions along the border. The international community has also weighed in on the matter, with French Minister of Europe and Foreign Affairs Stephane Sejourn expressing concerns during a joint press conference with US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in Paris.

Amidst these escalating tensions, speculation abounds regarding the possibility of further escalation and the potential consequences thereof. Military expert Azad Isazade expressed his opinion on this issue in the "Difficult Question" program, emphasizing the importance of troop movements and exercises as signaling mechanisms between neighboring states. While the redeployment of troops does not guarantee imminent conflict, it nonetheless serves as a potent message to adversaries. Isazade underscored the importance of Azerbaijan responding proportionately to such provocations, highlighting the delicate balance between defense and escalation.

Of particular concern is the timing of these incidents, coinciding with a crucial meeting between Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and high-ranking officials from the United States and the European Union. The proximity of these diplomatic engagements raises the specter of opportunistic actions by either party to exploit the situation for strategic advantage. Isazade cautioned against provocative actions during these sensitive diplomatic encounters, warning of the potential repercussions and international condemnation.

Furthermore, Isazade expressed skepticism regarding the intentions of external actors, particularly France, in the ongoing conflict resolution efforts. He suggested that certain external entities may seek to prolong the conflict for their own strategic interests, thereby impeding the prospects for a sustainable peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia. This underscores the complexity of the geopolitical dynamics at play and the challenges inherent in achieving a mutually acceptable resolution.

As tensions continue to simmer along the Azerbaijan-Armenia border, the stakes remain high for both countries and the wider region. The specter of renewed hostilities looms large, underscoring the urgent need for diplomatic dialogue, de-escalation measures, and concerted international efforts to facilitate a lasting peace settlement. Failure to address these tensions could have far-reaching consequences, exacerbating instability and human suffering in an already volatile region.