Armenia rejects Azerbaijan’s claim of cross-border bombardment and argues that the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense’s report, which alleged Armenian forces opened fire toward Azerbaijani positions on September 30 and caused the death of a serviceman, does not reflect ground realities. Yerevan maintains that there was no Armenian artillery engagement at the cited time or in the specified sectors and urges careful verification before such reports are shared publicly. This denial fits into a broader pattern where both sides exchange accusations over incidents along the disputed border and in Karabakh, heightening tensions and complicating efforts to reduce tensions. Official Armenian channels reiterate a commitment to transparency while insisting that any claim of Armenian responsibility must be corroborated by independent evidence and border-monitoring data.
Earlier, Azerbaijan’s defense ministry announced the loss of a soldier due to shelling along the Armenian border, with details released through its press service. Yerevan has scrutinized the assertion, arguing that no verification mechanism has produced evidence supporting the Azerbaijani account and that the information released may be part of a wider information campaign surrounding the border situation. Armenian authorities point to the absence of independently verifiable data and call for restraint and factual reporting to prevent further misperceptions that could escalate hostilities between the two nations.
According to the Azerbaijani defense ministry, on September 30 Armenian armed forces allegedly conducted sniper fire from areas near Zerkend in the Basarkechyar district toward Azerbaijani positions near Asagi-Ayrim in the Kalbajar region. Baku frames this incident as a targeted action by Armenian forces in a zone already contested by both sides and asserts that the Azerbaijani forces were responding to what it describes as deliberate provocations that threaten regional stability. The Azerbaijani authorities maintain that such incidents underscore the need for decisive measures to safeguard national security and deter further cross-border aggression.
In response to these developments, the Azerbaijani defense ministry has stated that it reserves the right to take retaliatory steps within its military and legal frameworks. The warning reflects a sense of urgency in statements issued by Baku, highlighting the ongoing risk of escalations along the front lines and in areas connected to the Karabakh context. Observers note that while official rhetoric often emphasizes deterrence, the actual ground behavior of the sides remains a key factor in preventing repeats of clashes seen in recent months across the region.
Separately, Armenian authorities reported a separate episode on September 19, describing a local operation in Karabakh aimed at countering what were labeled as large-scale provocations and disarmament efforts. The statement framed the action as a domestic security measure designed to prevent destabilization and protect civilian populations in affected areas. This development underscores the ongoing, highly sensitive security situation in the broader South Caucasus, where military moves, border incidents, and political rhetoric routinely interact to shape regional dynamics and draw international responses.
In a related strand of events, Armenia’s political leadership criticized Russia’s participation in human rights deliberations at the Council of Europe, signaling questions about regional security architecture and the alignment of external actors with evolving security concerns in Nagorno-Karabakh and along the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. The remark illustrates how international forums and diplomacy intersect with on-the-ground tensions, influencing perceptions of legitimacy, mediation prospects, and the fault lines among involved parties and their international partners. Analysts suggest that such statements can complicate mediation efforts while also signaling Armenia’s expectations for more balanced involvement by major regional actors in managing the conflict and in upholding humanitarian norms across affected communities.