Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan recently stated that he proposed to Azerbaijan the withdrawal of Euro-observers from the delimited sections of the border. It is unclear why such a statement was made, as there are no observers on the Azerbaijani side. Furthermore, we do not recall Yerevan or the EU mission requesting Azerbaijan’s consent to monitor its territory. If Pashinyan made this gesture as a sign of goodwill, it is unlikely to be appreciated in Baku. Not only in the delimited areas, but across the entire border, third-country missions have no legal right to conduct surveillance over Azerbaijani territory without its consent. Yet, this is exactly what the members of the international mission are doing, violating all norms and laws.

Pashinyan is engaging in typical blackmail. Now, he is attempting to pressure Baku by leveraging the EU mission, suggesting that it will remain a nuisance until Azerbaijan agrees to sign a peace treaty on Armenia’s terms. The Europeans are complicit in this game. These frequent missions along the conditional border, the overt and unceremonious surveillance of a sovereign country’s territory through binoculars, and now, the visit of Polish President Duda to the occupied village of Kyarki—these are all part of a coordinated campaign. But espionage is not the most important aspect of this "program." The primary objective is to divert attention from Armenia’s accelerated military preparations. More specifically, it aims to prepare Armenia for further regional destabilization.

Recently, Armenia's Ministry of Defense dismissed media reports about Yerevan purchasing weapons, claiming the reports were false. Of course, no one believes this denial. Armenia is undergoing intensive militarization, acquiring modern weaponry from across the globe. Armenia is a country in servitude; it makes no independent decisions, especially concerning war. If Yerevan receives orders, it will comply without question and follow the West’s directives, which is precisely what it is doing.

The statements made by Polish President Duda after his visit to the border are telling. He did not deny being shown the locations of border fortifications and positions of "individual states"—referring to Azerbaijan, though he did not name it. He was briefed on many issues, including the constant shelling and destruction of infrastructure, which, they claimed, Armenia was saved from by the EU mission. He also learned about the increasing number of new Azerbaijani fortifications. A hundred Europeans with binoculars roam the border, supposedly keeping the peace, and the Polish president, impressed by these efforts, is already contemplating an increase in the number of Polish personnel in the European Union Monitoring Mission (EUMA).

By the way, the mandate of the EUMA ends in February 2025, and all EU countries must vote on its extension. We will see whether those supporting war in the Caucasus can achieve unanimity. It is possible that the mandate will not be renewed. This may explain the recent surge in activity by the EU mission. From the moment of its arrival, the mission's goal was never peace or stability, but rather to intercept the initiative. To justify its presence, the "Azerbaijani threat" myth was created, with the EU mission portrayed as the only obstacle to it. This myth not only serves to rationalize European presence in Armenia but also underpins the militarization of the country.

Unfortunately, the recent visit of the Polish leader to Armenia is part of the West’s broader strategic games in the region. There are hidden processes unfolding, clearly detrimental to the South Caucasus. The logic behind these processes aligns with Nikol Pashinyan’s increasingly belligerent rhetoric, as he continues to find new excuses for blackmail. Hiding behind the French, Americans, and other allies, he executes an agenda drawn up in Paris, point by point. This is a grave mistake because Paris will never dominate when Azerbaijan’s interests are at stake. Baku sees everything clearly and knows everything. The movement of Armenian equipment and personnel toward the border has been documented. The fact that France is lobbying third countries to supply weapons to Armenia is not a secret. Despite its alliance with Armenia, even Greece would never consider supplying Russian S-300 missiles to Armenia in lieu of Ukraine. Insider information about France’s involvement in this effort is beyond doubt. Whether or not it succeeds is another matter. Recently, India, also urged by France, announced it was sending missiles to Armenia, though the Ministry of Defense denied it. But when has anyone believed the Armenian Ministry of Defense?

France is not only facilitating arms deals with Yerevan, but is also attempting to draw other European nations into this vortex. It would not surprise us if the center of European "solidarity" gradually shifts from Ukraine to Armenia. The West’s efforts in Ukraine have faltered, but Armenia promises greater prospects. The southern borders of Russia are quieter, and the situation in Georgia has been resolved, leaving Armenia to play its part.

Why was the "summit meeting" held by the EU mission near Kyarki village? Could it be because Armenia refuses to return it to Azerbaijan and hopes for EU support? Whether Armenia wants it or not, the issue of returning the enclaves must be addressed. Azerbaijan has not pursued this issue recently due to COP29, but now it is time to refocus on the topic. Everyone knows that Baku is not willing to relinquish its territories. Pashinyan understands that serious problems lie ahead, and in desperation, he tries to shift from one crisis to the next. He makes bold statements, blackmails Baku with the European mission and potential international legal proceedings, fully aware that these institutions will always rule in favor of Armenia. He sets conditions and pretends to be in control of the situation. This is necessary for the script, where a small but noisy victory is scripted—perhaps along the Nakhchivan border. It is no coincidence that the EU mission is regularly rotating in this area.

Few are seriously considering a return to the pre-September 27, 2020, status quo, but a small and loud victory would be useful. The only problem is that Azerbaijan refuses to play the role assigned to it. It will not yield to provocations. No one expected that in four years, the victorious nation would not try to seize Zangezur or at least the enclaves by force, disrupting the entire game. Now, "occupation" and the "Azerbaijani threat" are being conjured up in real-time, because Azerbaijan must make the first move so that Armenian revanchism remains confined to the realm of international law.

Meanwhile, time is running out. Pashinyan, without cause, nervously promises Armenians that a peace agreement will be signed by the end of this year. Clearly, this deadline was set by his foreign backers, knowing that the goal is unattainable. They need destabilization, not peace. Yerevan has bowed so deeply to the West that it will not be able to recover without external assistance.

And of course, Nikol Pashinyan himself is eager to assume the role of "varchapet," but without the irony. However, Baku will not allow him to do so.