Let’s break it down step by step and provide a diplomatic interpretation.
First and foremost, as President Aliyev reminded, Armenian saboteurs carried out a terrorist act in Azerbaijan the day before, planting anti-tank mines on the road, resulting in civilian casualties and police officers’ deaths. This marks a clear shift towards terrorism targeting the civilian population and infrastructure in the liberated territories. It should be understood that Azerbaijan would not silently tolerate such actions, especially when accompanied by shelling. To prevent such provocations, Azerbaijan had to undertake localized counter-terrorism measures in the region.
In other words, to put it diplomatically, the Armenian side was playing a role in escalating tensions in the region, and this “game of escalation” was the reason for the counter-terrorism measures.
Furthermore, as emphasized by Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan does not target civilian populations or infrastructure with shelling; only legitimate military targets are disabled. It’s worth adding that, aside from peacekeepers, there should be no military targets in Karabakh.
Finally, President Aliyev clarified the issue of direct dialogue with Karabakh Armenians, which other countries, including the United States, have encouraged. The Azerbaijani administration extended multiple invitations to Karabakh Armenians for talks, but they consistently declined. The invitation to dialogue was even voiced during the course of anti-terrorism operations. These operations will cease if the opposing side lays down their arms. It’s important to note that after several instances of dialogue breakdown from the Armenian side and their shift towards terrorism and a military scenario, Azerbaijan’s conditions had to toughen. Furthermore, Azerbaijan’s demands are in line with international law and the “agreement folder.”
According to the Trilateral Statement, Armenian forces were supposed to be withdrawn from Karabakh when Russian peacekeeping forces were deployed. Azerbaijan has no intention of tolerating foreign military presence on its territory, which is not sanctioned by any international agreements. It is Azerbaijan’s sovereign right to clear foreign military infrastructure from its territory, especially when no invitation to Karabakh was ever extended.
Intentionally, we will not delve into the question of how well the U.S. State Department was informed about the events by the U.S. Embassy in Baku. However, the ball is now in the U.S. court. While shaping its policies, the U.S. can no longer pretend to be unaware of the terrorist acts, illegal military infrastructure in Karabakh, or the fact that separatists repeatedly sabotaged dialogue opportunities and missed chances to de-escalate the situation peacefully.
Therefore, it is the Armenian side that bears responsibility for forcing Azerbaijan to resort to anti-terrorism measures.
