Ilham Aliyev vs. Ararat Mirzoyan
Genesis Armenia Think Tank/Foundation has published Gevorg Galtakyan’s article, which discusses the statements made by I. Aliyev on Jan. 7, 2025, (reference) and A. Mirzoyan on Jan. 8, 2025, (reference) regarding Armenia-Azerbaijan relations. Below are presented approaches, arguments and counterarguments on key issues—although the statements of both sides are primarily classic “agitprop”—as well as factual assessments of the conflict situation in the South Caucasus, which shows no signs of improvement.
Overall, both I. Aliyev and A. Mirzoyan have kept to their usual style in making these statements: Aliyev once again issues threats against Armenia, while Mirzoyan continues to confuse hypocrisy and flattery with diplomacy, posing as a “civilized and pro-state,” and “peace-loving” figure—at the expense of national interests. The article proposes to address the issues in question separately.
Border Delimitation and Demarcation: “Dialogue-Monologue” Wordplay by I. Aliyev
In general, the issue of border delimitation and demarcation between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been presented in contradictory ways for propaganda purposes in both countries. The ruling majority in Armenia has framed it as “a means to make Armenia safer and to fulfill Azerbaijan’s legitimate demands to avoid greater losses,” while in Azerbaijan, it is portrayed as “the ability to extract unilateral concessions from Armenia through the threat of force.”
This dynamic can also be seen in the public statements made by Aliyev and Mirzoyan in this regard, where Mirzoyan presents the cession of Armenian-controlled territories in Tavush to Azerbaijan as a step toward strengthening Armenia’s security system and borders, while Aliyev insists that Armenia returned these villages on a voluntary-compulsory basis—in fact, under military threat.
Here, we cannot but recall N. P.’s speech in Tavush, where he claimed that “not ceding those territories to Azerbaijan would lead to war and even greater losses.” To remind, N.P. also asserted that, contrary to the calls of the acting head of Armenia’s General Staff, he would not sign the version of the November 9 Statement that proposed ceding the villages in Tavush—which he referred to as villages in Azerbaijan’s Qazakh district—stating he would not sign it even if “his hands were cut off.”
In fact, it is clear that the Republic of Armenia can be “subjected to blackmail” through the threat of war—among other things—indicating a serious gap in Armenia’s security system.
A. Mirzoyan presents Armenia’s cession of territories to Azerbaijan in the following way: “Last year, we made significant progress in the process of normalizing relations with Azerbaijan. I am, of course, talking about the delimitation process. We managed to sign, in fact, the first-ever international legal document between the two countries—the charter for the joint activities of the two border commissions. And then, delimitation of a certain section of the interstate border took place on the ground… There is an understanding of where and how to continue the delimitation.”
Moreover, the major “question” from the outset has been whether Azerbaijan is willing to withdraw its troops from internationally recognized territories of Armenia, and A. Mirzoyan’s vague response, which does not clarify where the delimitation will take place, suggests there may be grounds for yet another unilateral concession.
To remind, in a press conference with Turkish Foreign Minister H. Fidan, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister J. Bayramov almost explicitly stated that there could be no talk of withdrawing Azerbaijani troops.
The Issue of Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s Security Spending
I. Aliyev justifies Azerbaijan’s clear military preparations and the increase in military capability by once again accusing Armenia. “The arms buildup in Armenia is certainly a new threat factor in the South Caucasus… In response, Azerbaijan has allocated 8.4 billion manats ($4.9 billion) for security and military spending… I can say that if it were not for Armenia’s militarization policy, perhaps 4 billion manats ($2.3 billion) would have sufficed for military and security spending, if we were not again facing potential threats,” Aliyev stated.
A. Mirzoyan’s response in this case was not original either. He noted that Armenia is purchasing weapons to defend its territories and is concerned that Azerbaijan, which is buying much larger quantities of weapons, may attack and, as it has already done in the past, violate Armenia’s territorial integrity. He added that a constructive approach has been proposed to Azerbaijan to create a mechanism for arms control. Noting that this proposal has also gone unanswered by Azerbaijan, Mirzoyan does not explain or clarify the obvious reason why Armenia’s proposals remain unanswered. For a proposal to be acceptable, it must be one that “cannot be refused,” meaning it must be highly beneficial or terrifying. To say that this is impossible even in the fantasy genre—especially given that it was done within the framework of his ‘Ω’ character—would be an overestimation of the situation and A. Mirzoyan’s personal and especially team-institutional capabilities.
In response to I. Aliyev’s recent ultimatum stating, “Arming Armenia will simply lead to new tensions. We do not want this. We want peace. We want the chapter of war to be closed, but we can see that neither Armenia nor its masters want this. They are living with revanchist ideas, and Armenia is actually a source of threat to the region… We are not going to give a ‘tamasha’ as mere observers. Armenia’s arming must be stopped immediately. France and other countries supplying it with weapons must sever and terminate those contracts. Weapons already sent to Armenia must be returned. This is our condition. Let anyone interpret this as they wish. I am stating my stance; they know—and those standing behind them know—that when we say something, we are serious about it,” A. Mirzoyan noted that approximately 200 square kilometers of Armenia’s sovereign territory is occupied by Azerbaijan, that even those territories would not be reclaimed militarily, and that Armenia would continue to purchase weapons solely for defensive purposes, stating it does not intend to return the already received arms.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the Aliyev-Mirzoyan duo is playing a waiting game; even in the absence of undeniable evidence of direct communication and agreement between them, this can be described as tacit agreement.
Armenia or Azerbaijan? Mutual Accusations as to Which One Is a Fascist State?
I. Aliyev issued yet another assessment-accusation-threat, stating, “The independent Armenian state is, in fact, a fascist state. Because, if this country has been led by proponents of fascist ideology for nearly 30 years, they have shaped this country the way they did… The policy of occupation carried out against us for 30 years is not solely Armenia’s doing; it is a collective effort involving Islamophobic, anti-Azerbaijani, nationalist, xenophobic organizations, and representatives of foreign countries collaborating with it. We are neighbors with such a fascist state, and the threat of fascism is not going away. Therefore, fascism must be destroyed. Either the Armenian leadership will destroy it, or we will. We have no other choice… The first three leaders of Armenia were proponents of fascist ideology. The current leadership now wants to present itself as a ‘dove of peace’, but look at its speeches in 2018-2019… The proponents of this are not only the opposition in Armenia but also the government.”
In response to the above-mentioned statement, A. Mirzoyan provided an asymmetrical answer, but as par for the course for him, not looking directly at his counterpart and hinting at Azerbaijan as a fascist state: “Of course, the temptation is strong to immediately counter this with undeniable, public, high-level statements that will prove the existence of a fascist attitude in Azerbaijan—one that is encouraged there—toward Armenians and Armenian identity. However, I will avoid that temptation and will try to contain myself.”
Mirzoyan clearly characterizes Aliyev’s statements as provocative, indicating that one should not respond to them, but instead should maintain composure and not be distracted from the “peace agenda,” even if the other side does not share this approach, as “firing at each other” is not a preferable option. He added that there has never been a lack of various threats from Azerbaijan, urging Armenian society to “be cautious and work, yes, with such a neighbor.”
Aliyev’s Preconditions for the Armenia-Azerbaijan ‘Peace Treaty’
I. Aliyev has openly stated why the “Peace Treaty,” which has become the subject of maximum manipulation in Armenia’s domestic political stage, has not been signed and will not be signed in the near future. He specifically stated: “I hope that all our conditions regarding the peace treaty will be accepted, as there are no particular issues within these conditions: the dissolution of the Minsk Group and amendments to the Constitution. Without this, a peace treaty is impossible. If Armenia does not need a peace treaty, then we do not need it either. We can live and implement our policy without it. In other words, I would advise the Armenian side to ‘weigh everything up carefully,’ including the geopolitical changes currently present in the world.”
Perhaps the following excerpt from I. Aliyev’s speech, full of contradictions, does not even require commentary or analysis, as the “dose” of lies surpasses all limits, and the threats being voiced only indicate that the Republic of Armenia has no alternative but to search for and find ways to definitively and fundamentally resolve this existential security threat.
Here is the main message of the leader of Azerbaijan, who, in fact, considers himself the “only man” in the South Caucasus: “Azerbaijan is not a source of danger for Armenia. We want there to be peace and cooperation in the South Caucasus, and for them not to be an obstacle for us, not to perform the function of a geographical barrier between Turkey and Azerbaijan. The Zangezur Corridor must be opened, and it will be opened. The sooner they understand this, the better. We cannot remain in this situation. Why should we go to Nakhchivan—which is an inseparable part of Azerbaijan—through different, alternative routes? We should have a direct connection, and this connection does not undermine Armenia’s sovereignty. We only need to implement the points of the November 10, 2020 Statement. Everything is clearly and explicitly presented there. We have been waiting for more than four years. For over four years, we want it to be resolved through negotiations. How long should we wait, and why should we wait? In other words, they need to take all of this into account. I have said once that they should not irritate us and should understand that the ‘one who dictates’ here is us, and Azerbaijan is a leading economy, a leading power, and a leading state in the South Caucasus. In today’s world, the factor of power is paramount.”
In contrast to the aforementioned bluster, A. Mirzoyan simply confesses and simultaneously intimidates the Armenian society that Azerbaijan is stronger and that we have no other option but to pursue the path of peace.
Despite all this, A. Mirzoyan has expressed yet another baseless optimism regarding the signing of a “Peace Treaty” and the normalization of relations—the purpose of which can only be to gain domestic political dividends. Thus, he stated: “Fifteen out of 17 points have been agreed upon… Armenia has made a proposal regarding the unblocking, which primarily concerns the unblocking of the Yerevan-Baku (Yeraskh-Jugha-Meghri-Horadiz) railway and the transit of goods. Here we have proposed both a certain simplification of customs and border crossing procedures and additional security mechanisms for the cargo. I should repeat that the initial reaction from the Azerbaijani side left a positive impression. The rest remains to be seen.'”
Armenia has initially countered the idea of the “Zangezur Corridor” proposed by Azerbaijan and Turkey with the concept of the “Crossroads of Peace”, with Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan stating that Armenia does not intend to be a “wedge” or “barrier” between Turkey and Azerbaijan, let alone a “bridge” or a “connecting link,” adding, “The concept of the ‘Zangezur Corridor’ is unacceptable for Armenia, and if Armenia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty over infrastructures are fully respected—across all components, including direct security provisions—then we are not only not against, but also interested in the prompt operation or re-operation of transport routes and infrastructures.”
Regarding the statement made on Nov. 10, 2020, Mirzoyan ridiculed those, including Edmon Marukyan, who spoke of the necessity of the application of that document, implying that it is outdated and does not align with existing realities and the state interests of Armenia.
Armenia’s Security System Dependence on Russia and the EU
Mirzoyan countered Aliyev’s military threats against Armenia’s security, referring to existing cooperation with Russia and the EU. Regarding security cooperation with Russia, he noted that the withdrawal of the Russian Federal Security Service Border Guards and the 102nd Military Base is not considered due to issues concerning Turkey. Regarding EU monitors, he noted: “The EU civilian mission continues to be deployed at the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, which is a crucial factor, especially given the times and rhetoric we are living in and witnessing. Our conviction is that as long as the Republic of Armenia does not have delimited borders—or in those areas where the Republic of Armenia does not have delimited borders with Azerbaijan—and as long as there are these false accusations regarding the armed forces of Armenia firing shots or violating peace—as we literally witnessed just days ago—we will need the presence of the EU civilian mission and will consider their presence essential.”
In this regard, Mirzoyan, in fact, admits that Armenia, with its current capabilities, cannot withstand Azerbaijan and needs to continue cooperation with international partners in the security sector, and, why not, especially deepen it as much as possible with the West, with the intention of eventually withdrawing the Russian FSB Border Guards and the 102nd Military Base of the Russian Ministry of Defense—but considering this possible only with the existence of clear security guarantees. At the same time, Mirzoyan notes that he does not want the EU to become the “second episode” of the Russian security umbrella, asserting that ultimately Armenia must be able to ensure its own security. This already indicates that, at least on this issue, Aliyev is correct and that the head of Armenia’s Foreign Ministry is cut off from geopolitical realities, despite having access to exclusive information ex officio.
Finally, personally criticizing the approaches and actions of Nikol Pashinyan and Ararat Mirzoyan—and if not entirely, certainly mostly qualifying them as both national and state treason—I believe there is a matter on which a clear consensus must be formed within Armenia—without even delving into the discourse of internal and external enemies: each day Ilham Aliyev remains unpunished for the crimes committed, now underway, and “to be committed” against the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Artsakh, its citizens, and the entire Armenian nation is a stain on the dignity of every Armenian.
Despite the above, Mirzoyan and Aliyev have at least one thing in common: they both express the idea that Armenians can live in present-day Azerbaijan. This is already a mortal sin, in the case of which, whether it is an enemy or a friend, neither reading reports or articles, nor neuroleptic drugs, nor even repentance will save us…
