The prime minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan, has framed recent regional tensions around a potential new large-scale conflict. He suggested that Azerbaijan may be seeking a justification to escalate hostilities, pointing to four villages that were under Armenian control in the 1990s as possible flashpoints. This view was relayed through official channels and reported by agencies tracking the situation in the South Caucasus.
Pashinyan stressed that Armenia does not claim ownership of any lands beyond its internationally recognized borders, and he reiterated that the villages in question should not be interpreted as territorial claims. He emphasized that Armenia seeks stability in the region and cautioned against any moves that could provoke a broader war, noting the risk that Azerbaijan might use such a pretext to justify renewed military action. The Armenian leadership has consistently asserted that its aim is security within recognized borders rather than expansionist aims.
In a related development, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry reported that Defense Minister Zakir Hasanov held an official session at the central command post of the armed forces. The ministry announced instructions to raise the tempo of exercises and practical training across military units. The message from Baku underscored a focus on readiness and deterrence amid ongoing regional tensions.
Meanwhile, the Russian ambassador to Armenia, Sergei Kopyrkin, made statements reflecting Moscow’s position on the border situation. He indicated that Russian border-guard posts had been placed along the Armenia–Azerbaijan boundary at the request of Yerevan. He also affirmed Russia’s readiness to fulfill its allied commitments if Yerevan asks for collective security support in the event of an external attack. These remarks come as regional powers navigate a delicate balance between diplomacy and deterrence.
Earlier, there were public discussions within Armenia about potential steps toward closer ties with the European Union. The evolving political conversation highlights broader strategic considerations in Yerevan, extending beyond immediate military tensions to questions of economic and political alignment with European institutions. Observers note that Armenia’s choices in this period are shaped by security concerns, regional alliances, and its longstanding goal of maintaining sovereignty and stability in a geopolitically complex neighborhood.
Analysts in both Canada and the United States have been watching the developments with a focus on humanitarian impacts, regional security, and diplomatic signaling. The discussions underscore how the Armenia–Azerbaijan dynamic influences Western policy priorities, including sanctions regimes, security aid, and regional cooperation initiatives. Stakeholders in North America emphasize the importance of stabilizing mechanisms, conflict de-escalation efforts, and confidence-building measures that can reduce the risk of miscalculation in moments of strategic tension.
Experts also note that the situation requires careful verification of reported troop movements and training activities, as misinformation can quickly escalate rhetoric and raise the stakes on the ground. Multilateral bodies and allied partners continue to urge restraint and emphasize that any durable resolution will rely on open channels of communication, adherence to international norms, and a commitment to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of both states. In this climate, observers encourage ongoing diplomatic engagement, transparent exchanges about military activities, and practical steps toward de-escalation that can pave the way for peaceful coexistence in the South Caucasus.