The Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs has publicly dismissed a recent statement by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. It described his remarks about a concentration of troops along the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia, as well as in the area of Karabakh, as a form of political manipulation. The ministry issued a formal comment through its foreign policy department, signaling a firm rejection of what it framed as another attempt to influence regional perceptions through rhetoric rather than facts.
The ministry’s statement challenges Pashinyan’s assertions that Azerbaijan has escalated the military-political situation in the South Caucasus and that it has moved a larger share of its forces toward critical border zones. The Azerbaijani side argued that such claims are part of a broader pattern of political maneuvering and propaganda aimed at shaping international opinion. In its reply, Baku labeled the Armenian government as the source of the accusations and emphasized that the statements lacked corroboration from credible military sources. The response stressed that Azerbaijan remains committed to transparency about its security posture, while denying any unilateral actions that could destabilize the regional balance.
The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry further warned that ongoing Armenian military provocations, long-standing territorial claims against Azerbaijan, and the presence of Armenian armed forces on Azerbaijani soil pose a real threat to regional security. The department asserted that these actions could undermine efforts to stabilize the area and hinder any progress toward sustainable peace. Officials underscored that the situation on the ground continues to be a concern for Azerbaijan and for neighboring states, calling for restraint and adherence to international norms to prevent miscalculation or accidental clashes along the frontier.
During a government meeting held on September 7, Pashinyan contended that Azerbaijan had concentrated its troops along the international border and along the line of contact with Nagorno-Karabakh. He argued that the military-political climate in the region had significantly worsened over the previous week, implying an uptick in tension and risk. The Azerbaijani side viewed these comments as a misrepresentation of the current state of affairs, arguing that no meaningful evidence was presented to support the claim of a mobilization at a scale that would amount to a strategic shift. The ministry asserted that such narratives could inflame public opinion without offering verifiable data to back them up, urging observers to examine the situation with discernment and caution.
Following these exchanges, one political analyst offered his take, suggesting that Azerbaijan’s moves near the border could be interpreted as a response to earlier actions by Armenia. The analyst proposed that what some observers describe as retaliation may instead reflect a broader pattern of deterrence and posture signaling in a tense border environment. While opinions diverged about the motive or timing of any perceived troop movements, the discussion highlighted the sensitivity surrounding border security and the importance of clear, factual reporting to avoid misunderstandings that could escalate tensions.
On the international front, a spokesman for the office of the Russian president commented that joint exercises between the United States and Armenia did not contribute to stabilizing the region or strengthening mutual trust between Baku and Yerevan. The spokesman noted that such activities could complicate regional dynamics by introducing new variables into an already fragile security environment. This remark echoed Moscow’s broader cautions about foreign military activity in the South Caucasus and the potential consequences for bilateral relations among the countries involved. The exchange underscored the complex web of external influences that can shape regional security calculations, even as each nation pursues its own strategic objectives.
Previously, a declaration from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledged Moscow’s concerns regarding the Armenia–United States exercises. The exchange illustrated how major powers monitor and react to military cooperation programs in the region, often framing those developments as contributing to either stabilization or instability depending on the observer’s stance. The evolving positions of these external actors add a layer of complexity to the security environment in Azerbaijan and its neighbors, reinforcing the need for careful diplomacy and verifiable information to guide policy decisions.