Armenia Rejects Azerbaijani Accusations of Border Fire, Highlights Disinformation Campaign and Stalled Peace Efforts
YEREVAN – Tensions continue to simmer between Armenia and Azerbaijan as the Armenian Ministry of Defense vehemently denied accusations of cross-border fire by Azerbaijani forces. The Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense claimed Armenian units targeted their positions in the southeastern border region on January 6th. Armenia promptly rejected these claims, labeling them as disinformation and part of a wider pattern of fabricated narratives aimed at escalating tensions and undermining regional peace efforts. The incident underscores the deep mistrust between the two nations and the fragile nature of the ceasefire agreement, which has been repeatedly violated since the conclusion of the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war. The ongoing disputes over border demarcation, the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the fate of prisoners of war continue to fuel the volatile situation.
The Armenian Ministry of Defense’s statement emphasized the Azerbaijani government’s consistent refusal to engage in constructive dialogue and mechanisms for conflict resolution. Armenia has proposed a joint investigative mechanism to address ceasefire violations, a proposal that Azerbaijan has yet to acknowledge or address. This lack of cooperation highlights the significant challenges in establishing a functional framework for de-escalation and building trust between the two sides. The Armenian side contends that Azerbaijan’s ongoing disinformation campaign and refusal to participate in joint investigations serves to obfuscate the reality on the ground and hamper efforts to hold perpetrators of ceasefire violations accountable.
The international community has repeatedly called for both sides to exercise restraint and engage in meaningful dialogue. The unresolved conflict poses a significant threat to regional stability, with the potential for further escalation and humanitarian consequences. The lack of progress in implementing the terms of the November 2020 ceasefire agreement, which included the deployment of Russian peacekeepers, has contributed to a volatile security environment and ongoing violations. International mediators, including the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs (Russia, France, and the United States), have urged Armenia and Azerbaijan to refrain from provocative actions and resume negotiations under their auspices.
The accusations and counter-accusations of border violations highlight the urgent need for impartial monitoring and investigative mechanisms. The Armenian proposal for a joint fact-finding body is seen as a crucial step towards establishing transparency and accountability. The absence of such a mechanism allows misinformation and conflicting narratives to proliferate, further hindering the prospect of a peaceful settlement. International organizations and observers have emphasized the importance of independent verification of ceasefire violations to prevent escalation and foster a climate of trust.
Beyond the immediate issue of border skirmishes, the broader conflict remains unresolved, with fundamental disagreements over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and the delineation of the border. The 2020 war significantly altered the balance of power in the region, with Azerbaijan regaining control over territories it had lost in the early 1990s. However, the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh, the security of its Armenian population, and the return of internally displaced persons and refugees remain highly contested issues. The lack of a comprehensive peace agreement continues to fuel tensions and hinder the prospects for lasting stability.
The international community continues to express its concerns as the fragility of peace in the region persists. While the 2020 ceasefire agreement has largely held, preventing a full-scale resumption of hostilities, the underlying issues remain unresolved. The lack of progress on key issues such as prisoner exchanges, the delimitation and demarcation of the border, and the opening of transport and communication links contributes to this climate of instability. Without a sustained commitment to dialogue and concrete steps towards conflict resolution, the risk of renewed violence remains significant.
