Armenia’s prime minister addressed the cabinet to address claims from Azerbaijan that Armenian forces were supplying arms into Nagorno-Karabakh. He described those accusations as a propaganda tactic aimed at stirring up tension and justifying potential escalation. He underscored that the information about military hardware being moved is not accurate, framing it as a calculated effort to legitimize a more aggressive posture at the border. The focus, he stated, should be on de-escalation and clear, verifiable communication to prevent missteps that could raise the risk of broader conflict.
In the meanwhile, the Azerbaijani defense ministry released a statement noting that Azerbaijani troops had taken control of several high ground and roadway positions within the Lachin corridor area, a region that lies along the frontier with Armenia. The claim stressed that these moves were connected to the opening of a new route through Lachin and highlighted control over multiple elevations, primary entrances, secondary paths, and the border zone spanning villages in the Lachin district. The message appeared to be part of a broader description of operational steps designed to secure strategic access and improve mobility for Azerbaijan’s forces.
The Armenian leadership countered with a warning that Baku may be pursuing actions that could amount to ethnic cleansing within Nagorno-Karabakh. The emphasis was on the potential humanitarian and demographic consequences of rapid military movements and the need for international attention to protect civilian populations caught in the crossfire. The rhetoric signaled a concern that intensified military activity could threaten minority residents and complicate any future political settlements that might be feasible.
On the international front, a spokesperson for the United States Department of State suggested that Azerbaijan was advancing its military positions in Nagorno-Karabakh. The comments reflected ongoing concern from Washington about rapid shifts on the ground and the potential for these efforts to undermine stability in a territory long watched by regional and global actors. The statement implied a preference for cautious steps and dialogue to avert further escalation and to support a path toward negotiated solutions that respect the rights and safety of all communities involved.
Across these developments, observers highlight the fragile balance in the region where rhetoric, military posture, and humanitarian considerations intersect. Analysts point to the importance of verified information, transparent military communications, and international engagement to prevent misinformation from fueling fear. The situation underscores how quickly regional disputes can evolve when signaling actions crowd the channel of diplomacy, and why steady, verifiable updates are crucial for anyone seeking a clear understanding of the evolving dynamics on the ground.