EUMA’s credibility fades as crisis on Armenia-Azerbaijan border spirals [OPINION]

By Elnur Enveroglu

After months of ambiguity, the intentions of the European Union Monitoring Mission in Armenia (EUMA) are becoming uncomfortably clear. What was originally presented as a neutral mission aimed at supporting border security and fostering stability has now taken a more troubling turn. Under the guise of monitoring, EUMA appears increasingly engaged in politically motivated provocations and selective reporting, casting doubt on the impartiality of its work.

Recently, EUMA claimed to have identified bullet holes in a location Armenia calls "Khoznavar." The announcement came not during active conflict, but quietly, on the eve of Easter, after nearly two months of conspicuous silence. During that time, Azerbaijani authorities issued repeated official complaints about ceasefire violations. Yet EUMA, in those moments, chose silence over scrutiny.

If neutrality were truly the guiding principle of this mission, EUMA would have sought context: Why did the shots occur? What does the other side say? Without addressing both perspectives, the mission risks becoming a mouthpiece for one party’s narrative. Investigations that ignore context, intent, and motive are not neutral—they are political.

Let us be clear: objectivity demands more than presence—it demands integrity. If an international mission chooses to act as a silent observer when one side reports violations, only to surface later with selective findings that conveniently align with the opposing narrative, then we must ask: Whose interests are being served?

What is unfolding at the border today echoes the calculated provocations of the past. Armenian armed forces have fired intermittently across multiple directions in recent weeks, seemingly trying to bait a reaction from Azerbaijan. With EUMA conveniently positioned nearby—binoculars in hand—there’s little doubt that these incidents are being curated into a narrative. One that, if left unchecked, risks laying the groundwork for a new conflict under the veneer of "monitoring."

This is not a neutral mission. It is a mission with an agenda.

The 2020 Second Karabakh War taught us that provocations can escalate quickly. Now, similar tactics are re-emerging—minor skirmishes disguised as self-defense, strategic concealment of heavy weaponry, and subtle, calculated shifts in diplomatic messaging. Armenia presents itself as a victim, even as it positions its forces to take advantage of any retaliatory response. EUMA, knowingly or not, is playing along.

Let’s not forget the contradiction at the heart of this mission’s credibility. In early April, Armenia’s own Ministry of Defense declared there had been no gunfire at the border. Shortly after, EUMA echoed the statement, calling Azerbaijan’s alerts “exaggerated.” But then, just days later, the same mission reversed course and claimed to find signs of gunfire. Which version should we believe? This inconsistency isn’t just suspicious—it’s dangerous.

Sadly, this isn’t the first time an international mechanism has strayed from its mandate. EUMA’s behavior evokes memories of the OSCE Minsk Group, which over the years lost legitimacy and became part of the problem rather than the solution. Like its predecessor, EUMA now risks becoming a factor that stokes conflict instead of reducing it.

Let us be absolutely clear: Armenia is not interested in peace. And EUMA, instead of encouraging dialogue, appears to be fast-tracking the region toward another round of hostilities. In the South Caucasus, misinformation isn’t just misleading—it’s lethal.

If EUMA genuinely wants to contribute to peace, it must return to its founding principle: impartiality. Without that, it is not a mission for peace. It is a mission looking for a fight.