Baku fears revenge from Armenia, political scientist says

Speaking with Alpha News, Russian political scientist Konstantin Tasits commented on Azerbaijan’s disinformation regarding Armenian shootings and the possibility of new aggression from Baku.

“Azerbaijan’s position is to finalize a peace deal as soon as possible, the text of which has been agreed upon. However, Baku still has two preconditions, which are related to the dissolution of the OSCE Minsk Group, which previously handled the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. From Azerbaijan’s perspective, since the conflict has been resolved, the Minsk Group is no longer necessary. The second condition concerns territorial claims towards Azerbaijan in Armenia’s legislative acts and Constitution. Specifically, the Armenian Constitution includes a reference to the Declaration of Independence, which asserts that Karabakh should be part of Armenia. Accordingly, the actions that Baku is taking are clearly aimed at accelerating these processes and solidifying the status quo in the South Caucasus,” the expert said.

According to the expert, official Baku fears revenge from Armenia and therefore tries to act proactively.

“According to Baku, revanchist sentiments continue to persist in Armenia, meaning that parts of Armenian society have not accepted the outcome. And that is why Armenia may use some loopholes related either to the Constitution or to some international structures to raise the Karabakh issue again. Therefore, in this case, the parties should agree and work on strengthening trust with each other to resolve all these issues,” Tasits emphasized.

Tasits does not see Azerbaijan’s statements as a threat of a potential invasion into Armenia’s territory, but there is still the possibility of localized hostilities in certain border areas.

“Since border delimitation and demarcation have not yet been completed, border escalations and clashes remain possible. However, I believe it is unlikely that Azerbaijan would attempt a deep military incursion or seize Armenian settlements because it would mean a blatant violation of international law and could provoke a strong reaction from the international community,” Tasits concluded.